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
Having described the three divisions into which all the material of 1
nature falls, I must add a few general remarks on the subject. And this
must be premised, that the atmosphere belongs to the class of bodies
that possess unity. What exactly this means, and why it must be laid
down as an axiom, will appear if I go back a little, and entering more
fully into the subject, tell you that certain bodies are continuous,
and certain formed, by a union of different elements.[35] Continuity
may be defined as unbroken union of parts one with another. Unity 2
is continuity without a break; it is the contact of two bodies joined
to one another. There can be no shadow of doubt that of the bodies
around us which we see and handle, and which are either perceived or
perceive, certain are composite. They are so either through nexus or 3
through mere accumulation; take as illustrations a rope, corn, a ship.
Again, there are bodies that are not composite, as a tree, a stone.
You must, therefore, grant that likewise among the objects that elude
sense, and are grasped only by thought, some are possessed of unity[36]
[while some arise from junction of parts]. See how careful I am of your
susceptibilities. If I had chosen to employ the jargon of philosophy, 4
I might have got out of the difficulty by merely saying “united
bodies.” You must, in turn, be duly grateful for this concession to
your weakness! What am I driving at? This: if at any time I speak of
“unity” in this connection, bear in mind that it is not used of number,
but has reference to the composition of a body that coheres through no
external aid, but by its own unity. To this category the atmosphere
belongs.
[35] This difficult passage, according to Gercke’s text, runs:
You will understand the meaning of this, and the necessity for my
axiomatic position if I take up the argument a little farther back,
and say that there is one kind of body possessing unity, another that
is continuous, and another that is formed by junction. For junction
is the contact of two bodies joined one to another, continuity is the
uninterrupted joining of parts one to another, unity is continuity
without junction (_i.e._ without a break).
[36] That is, are not composite.
III
The universe embraces all the objects that fall, or that can fall, 1
under our cognisance. Of these some are its parts, the remaining ones
must form its material. Nature, just like every manual art everywhere,
requires material. Let me make this a little plainer. In ourselves 2
the parts are hand, bones, sinews, eyes; the material is the sap of the
digested food, which will be distributed for the nourishment of the
parts. Again, blood is in a certain sense a part of us, but still it is
material as well. For it goes to form other parts, and, none the less,
it is among the parts that go to make up the whole body.
IV
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