SENECAAND ANAXAGORAS IN PSEUDO-BEDE'SDE MUNDI CELESTIS

TERRESTRISQUE
CONSTITUTIONE

by Harry M. Hine

The De mundi celestis tetTestrisque constitutione (henceforth DMC) is a fascinating

example of the scientific thinking that was current in the Middle Ages before the redis-
covery of Greek and Arabic scientific writings. The recent edition by Charles Burnett!
has put study of DMC upon a completely new and sound footing, providing a text that
is far superior to Migne's (PL 90.881-910), together with an introduction, translation,
and notes. The work was first printed by Herwagen in his 1563 Basel edition of the
works 6f Bede. It is strange that he accepted the attribution to Bede, for in the text
ofDMC Bede is twice named as a source (1.44, 1.1542), besides which there are refer-
encesto astronomical events recorded in Carolingian chronicles under the years A.D.
798 and 807.3These referencesgive a terminus post quem which has provided the start-
ing point for modern discussion of the time and place of composition of DMC.
The place has now been pinned down fairly closely by Burnett (6-11). Hitherto,
discussionofDMC has depended on Migne's text (M), which is based on Herwagen's,
but Burnett has found three manuscripts: T (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek
18,918, late twelfth century) is from the abbey of Tegernsee; E (Einsiedeln 357, writ-
ten before 1288) was in 1288 given to the monastery of Einsiedeln by Johannes Biber-
lin, a citizen of Zurich; there is no direct evidence of the provenance of V (Vatican,
Bibliotheca apostolica Pal. lat. 1357, thirteenth century), but since E is copied from
it, it is likely to come from the same area, and there is corroborative evidence in the
information about the Suevi (inhabitants of the area around Lake Constance)included
in V (Burnett 10-11). The manuscript used by Herwagen is lost, but he was working
at Basel, and may have used a local manuscript. So, DMC plainly seemsto come from
the area of Switzerland or southern Germany. It is also interesting that MS T diverges
from the others both textually and geographically: for its text is so different from VEM's
that it seemsto be a different recension (Burnett 3-4), and it comes from Tegernsee,
which is some distance from the area with which VEM are associated. There is a fur-
ther intriguing twist to the story of DMC's provenance, for C. W. Jones, not know-
ing about the surviving manuscripts, had previously assumed on quite different

'Pseudo-Bede:De mundi ce/estistetTestrisqueconstitutione,a Treatiseon the Universeand the Sou/,

ed. and trans. CharlesBurnett, Warburg Institute Surveysand Texts 10 (London 1985). I am grateful to
Dr. Burnett for commentingon a draft of this article; but its deficienciesremain entirely my responsibility.
2AII teferencesareto Burnett's edition. I havecollatedmicrofilms of manuscriptsV and T, and some-
timesamplify his teponsof their teadings.Mis Migne'stext, which differsfrom Herwagen'sin a few places,
mostly correctionsof minot errors. E, which containsonly pan II of DMC, is a copy of V (Burnett 10), so
I ignore it.
~See1.191 and 259, with Burnett's noteson p. 72.

.
112 HARRY M. HINE

grounds that DMC came from the region of Reichenau or Saint Gall, in the second
half of the ninth century. DMC contains the unusual theory that the planets Mercury
and Venus are sometimes above the sun and sometimes below it (1.190-197), and Jones
noted the resemblance between this theory and diagrams he found in two ninth-
century manuscripts from Reichenau and Saint Gall. Hence he inferred ("in the ab-
sence of other evidence to the contrary") that DMC came from the same region and
period asthose manuscripts.4 His inference needs further investigation, particularly in
view of the uncertainty about DMC's date, which I turn to now.
The date ofDMC's composition cannot yet be so firmly determined as the place.
It used to be thought that DMC belonged to the ninth century, because the latest
demonstrable source was a Carolingian chronicle, as mentioned above. More recent
opinion, however, favors an eleventh- or twelfth-century date, becauseof the dates of
the surviving manuscripts, and because of resemblances to other Platonizing
philosophical works of the twelfth century (see Burnett 1~6, 68-71, 76-83).' But the
question of dating is complex and cannot be regarded as closed, for three reasons.First,
further work needs to be done on the chronology of the other works of similar con-
tent which Burnett has brought to light. Secondly, as Burnett (3-4) recognizes, the
text of DMC shows signs of having evolved over time, quite apart from the fact that
MY and T representradically different versions; further researchmay revealmore about
this evolution,6 and about the relationship between MV and T. Thirdly, DMC falls
into two halves, the first of which deals with the universe, the second with the human
soul (Burnett numbers them parts I and II, with arabic numerals for subsections); Bur-
nett (5) argues that both parts "originate in the same 'schoolroom,' " which is very
likely true of them in their present form; but the subject ~atter of the two parts is so
different, and each is so self-contained, that I would not rule out the possibility that
two works of different origin and perhaps different date have been put together. (Here
Jones's suggestion of the influence of ninth-century astronomical theory is imponant,
if it can be corroborated.) Nevenheless, DMC shows sufficient cohesion to tempt me
to talk of its "author," even if this is only a convenient shorthand for a series of peo-
ple who have helped to shape the work as we have it.
Whatever its date, and however long its gestation, the DMC gives a distinctive flavor

4C. W. jones, Bedae Pseudepigrapha (Ithaca 1939) 83-85 (my quotation is from 85); d. idem, "A Note
on Concepts of the Inferior Planets in the Early Middle Ages," Isis 24 (1935-1936) 397-399. The manuscripts
are Karlsruhe Aug. 167 fol. 16 and St. Gall 248 p. 82. DMC 1.190-197 is a difficult passage, so I give some
notes on it: at 190 "aliquando inferiores" (T corrected by Burnett, see his apparatus) is necessaryafter su-
penores, to make senseof the next clause and of enim in 191; at 196 there is no need to supply vel, for "tam-
quam iam sint minores" (a loose equivalent of "quia minores apparent") is pan of the reason for Mercury
and Venus's being invisible when above the sun (corresponding to "et maiores apparent" in 195); in 197
directe means' 'at right angles (scil. to our line of vision)," not "directly" (d. Thesaurus linguae lall.nlle
[11.L] 5.1251.63-69).
'The parallels between DMC and Remigius (see Charles Burnett, "A Note on the Origins of the Third
Vatican Mythographer," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 44 [1981] 160-166, and his edition
72-74) show that they draw on a common stock of material, but are not sufficient to prove that Remigius
is the source ofDMC; so Remigius does not provide a terminus post quem for DMC. Otherwise the Carolin-
gian chronicles are the latest of the possible sources listed in Burnett 15-16.
6Note, for instance, that 1.64-94, on the seas, seems to be an insertion, or at least misplaced, because
1.96 refers back to 1.61-63 as though the intervening chapters were not there; on 1.107-116 seebelow; I. 384-
389 and 425-448 and 11.1-19 are not in T, and may be later additions.
 SENECA AND ANAXAGORAS IN PSEUDO-BEDE 113

of the intellectual world out of which it grew. It is not a work of great originality, but
the author has made his own selection of material and imposed his own arrangement
on it. Most of it is taken from earlier scientific handbooks, but pot all. As we have
already seen, he has drawn on Carolingian chronicles, for records of astronomical ob-
servations which he usesto amplify his account of planetary motions; and he has un-
usual ideas about the motion of the lower planets. In the meteorological sections,which
will be analyzed in detail below, there are signs that he may be drawing on his own
personal observation. Sometimes, however, he betrays an uncertain grasp of his sub-
ject, for there are mistakes and confusions, particularly in the astronomical sections(see
my Appendix 2 for some examples; though it will there appear that some of the con-
fusions are confined to one of the two versions, either MV or T). But above all, as Bur-
nett shows, there are two notable features ofDMC, "a sympathy for, and knowledge
of, astrology, and the use of elements which appear to derive from folklore and popular
mythology" (5). Furthermore, DMC gives important evidence about the range of
authors available at the time it wascomposed. Macrobius, Hyginus, Martianus Capella,
Fulgentius, and Bede De temponbus are cited by name, as are the Carolingian annals;
in addition, there is unmistakable use of Calcidius, Pseudo-Clement Recognitiones,
Servius,Isidore Etymologiae, and Bede De natura rerum (Burnett 1). This list of sources
fits well into a southern German context any time between the ninth and twelfth cen-
turies (Burnett 1-2).
But it is far from clear whether certain other works were used by the author ofDMC
or not. One such work is Seneca's Natural Questions. Unlike the sourcesmentioned
above, the Natural Questions was a rare work, not widely available within the geo-
graphical and chronological limits of DMC's composition. We know from a catalog
that there was a manuscript of the Natural Questions at Reichenau in the ninth cen-
tury.7 Thereafter the work disappears from view, until its reemergence in the twelfth
century in the earliest surviving manuscripts, which come from France and northern
Germany.8 So if it can be demonstrated that DMC used the Natural Questions directly,
that will add a valuable detail to our patchy picture of the survival of the Senecanwork.
The aim of this article is to argue for direct use of Seneca.

1. THE SOURCF$OF THE METEOROLOGICAL SECTIONS OF DMC

The name of Senecadoes not appear in DMC, but Burnett has included a number of
parallels from the Natural Questions in his Apparatus II, without reaching any con-
clusion about whether Senecais a direct source or not.9 One must say at the outset that
there are no unmistakably close quotations or paraphrases of Seneca, in the way that
there are of other authors such as Macrobius, Isidore, Bede, Martianus, or Calcidius.
But there are similarities of language and content, mostly points of detail, but some

P. Lehmann,Mittelalterliche BibliothekskatalogeDeutschlandsfInd der Schweiz1 (Munich 1918)

266.
.SeeH. M. Hine in Textsand Transmission:A Su1'l/eyofthe Latin Classics,
ed. L. D. Reynolds(Oxford
1983)376-378.
9Cf. Burnett 16, wherethe Natural Questionsappearamong works' 'which appearto haveprovidedthe
sources,directly or indirectly, of the doctrines" of DMC (Burnett 15).

'See
 114 HARRY M. HlNE

of them striking. However, it is not sufficient to show a resemblance to Seneca. One

must also try to rule out the possibility of some other ancient or medieval author be-
ing the source; and even where I have found no alternative source, there is always the
risk that I have overlooked one.
To start with, the passagesof DMC where Senecaninfluence may be sought need
to be delimited. The subject matter of the Natural Questions is meteorology in the
ancient sense, which includes everything that happens in between the celestial region
and the earth. This embraces comets, meteors, rivers, and earthquakes, in addition to
the phenomena that we call meteorological. It also embracesthe sea, but that happens
not to be dealt with in Seneca's work.lo So the two parts of DMC where we may
reasonablylook for Seneca'sinfluence are the meteorological passages,namely, 1.52-60
on earthquakes, and 1.95-156 on mists, snow, hail, air, winds, lightning, dew, the
rainbow, and other topics. I shall not simply pick out from these passagesthe sections
where there is an obvious possibiliry of Senecaninfluence, but I shall examin~ the pas-
sages in their entirety, for two reasons: first, to avoid giving an exaggerated impres-
sion of the extent of possible Senecan influence; secondly, because our texts of the
Natural Questions are incomplete, lacking the end of Book 4a and the start of Book
4b; we should therefore entertain the possibility that a more complete text was avail-
able to the compiler ofDMC. Book 4a deals with the Nile, which does not come within
the purview of DMC, but 4b is potentially relevant, for in its lost part it dealt proba-
bly with rain and dew, and certainly with snow and hail.
I shall examine the meteorological passagesofDMC section by section, paraphras-
ing each section and discussing its sources. (All references are to part I of DMC un-
less othetwise stated.)

Earthquakes (52-60)

Earthquakes are the subject of SenecaNatural Questions Book 6. DMC first gives a sec-
tion heading (52 TefTemotus)and states the theme of this section (53 "Terra quoque
movetur, quod terremotum vocamus; unde dantur coniecture"). Then, in accordance
with DMC's regular practice, there is a list of alternative explanations, in this casefour:
(i) the earth is full of hollow passages,and when winds enter them and strug-
gle to escape,earthquakes result (54-56);

(ii) huge collapsesof rock within cavities inside the earth causeearthquakes (57);

(iii) movement of the abyss shakes the earth (58);

(iv) the movements and regurgitations of Leviathan produce earthquakes and
floods (59-60).

As Burnett says,the fourth explanation looks like popular speculation, and the jux-
taposition of earthquakes and floods is found in Bede De natura rerum 49 (which
comes from Pliny Naturalis hzstona 2.200). The third explanation draws on biblical

'OForthe theoretical possibility that the Natural Questions originally contained more than the eight books
that survive, and that it could have dealt with the sea originally, see H. M. Hine, An Edition with Com-
mentary of Seneca Natural Questions Book Two (New York 1981; !,epr. Salem 1984) 32-34.

A.
SENECA AND ANAXAGORAS IN PSEUDO-BEDE 115

ideas (Burnett comparesGenesis 7.11), but if the abyssis here equated with water, then
in substance the explanation resembles that of Thales, recorded at Seneca Natural
Questions 6.6, and (without attribution to Thales) at Lucretius 6.552-556, Servius in
Georgica 2.479 and Isidore Origines 14.1.3.11
Only the first two explanations belong squarely in the classical tradition, and they
are both found in a wide range of classical authors. As Burnett notes, Ecclesiastes1.7
is cited (55) in support of explanation (i). This "trapped winds" explanation is a com-
mon one: Burnett compares Bede De natura rerum 49, which gives a similar explana-
tion; but there are no close verbal similarities, and similar theories are found in Bede's
sources (Pliny Naturalis histona 2.192 and 2.200, and Isidore De natura rerum 4612),
and also in Lucretius 6.557-564, 577-595, SenecaNatural Questions 6.12-18, Lucan
3.459-461, Servius in Georgica 2.479, and Isidore Ongines 14.1.2 (quoting Sallust
Histonae 2.28 Maur.). The "falling rocks" explanation (ii) is found at Lucretius
6.543-551, Seneca Natural Questions 6.10, 22, Servius in Georgica 2.479', Isidore
Ongines14.1.3.
No verbal parallels identify DMC's source with any of these authors, but two un-
usual features ofDMC's vocabulary are worth noting, and both open up the possibility
of Senecaninfluence:
(1) The term traco, used for channels under the earth (55), is rare: it occurs at Isi-
dore Differentiae 1.165 in a slightly different sense("draco est immanis belua, tra-
conesvero sunt hiatus terrae"); and SenecaNatural Questions 3.24.2-3, using the form
draco, reports that Empedocles said that under the ground there are hollows like the
draconesused in water-heating. In DMC there is some confusion between the forms
draco and traco. T has the form draco in 54 (see below) and in an insertion in 1.97 (see
Burnett's apparatus; it is not necessarilyto be correct to trac-), but the other form traco
in 55. DMC's vocabulary might be influenced either by Isidore or by Seneca.
(2) DMC compares the underground channels to arteries, or to arteries and veins
in T's text (1.54 T "Terra ad modum arteriarum per quas spiritus discurrit in homine,
ad imitationem venarum per quas cursus est sanguinis, habet foramina et dracones";
MV "Terra, ad imitationem arteriarum per quas spiritus discurrit in homine, habet
cavernas, foramina et tracones, per que venti et flumina discurrunt"). The earth is
often compared to a living body, and specific comparison of the channels in the earth
to venaeis common (Seneca 3.2.1,3.3,3.15.5,6.4.1, al., Pliny 2.166,192, Bede De
natura rerum 49, cf. 44; not Lucretius, Isidore, or Servius locc. citt.), but arteries, to
my knowledge, occur in such comparisons only at Seneca Natural Questions 3.15.1.
But the transition from veins to arteries is easily made, so this is not sure evidence of
Senecaninfluence.

B. Mist, Cloud, Rain (95-101)

Thesetopicswere probably dealt with in the lost part of Natural QuestionsBook 4b,
but this sectionofDMC need not detain us long, becauseits sourcesare readilyiden-
tifiable. 95 is the title, 96 ("Hec duo elementa[sc. terra et aqua] invicem sibi mixta

"I have not normally given parallels from Greek authors, unless they are especially significant, because
rhere is no reason to think that they are relevant to the sources of DMC.
(2Cf. MGH Poetae 6.1.151, carm. 22.
116 HARRY M. HINE

sunt") rel?eats62 ("Sunt enim hecduo elementainvicem sibi mixta ..."), and 97
adds: "Terra enim'fatisceret nisi aquarumhumoribus conglutinaretur." The likely
sourceis BedeDe natura rerum 44 (whichcomesfrom Pliny Natura/ishistona2.166).
The explanationof mist, cloud and rain in 98-101 is, asBurnett notes,takenfrom Isi-
dore Ongines 13.7.2,13.10.2-4, De natura rerum 32.2-33.2.

C. Snow(102-117)

Snow was dealt with in the lost part of Natura/ Questions Book 4b. DMC 102 is the
title. 103-104 deals with:
(i) the formation of snow ("Cum humores nebularum ascendunt, si terreno
frigore preveniuntur, in nives convertuntur");
(ii) the greater frequency of snow on mountains;

(iii) two types of snow (104 "Sunt autem duplices: que in mulcebri aere cadunt
ut grosse,que statim liquescunt; et alie minute que in uredine frigoris cadentes
tecti foramina penetrant").

(i) might come from Bede De natura rerum 35 (' 'Nives aquarum vapore, necdum den-
sato in guttas, sed gelu praeripiente formantur"). (ii) is a straightforward observation
for which no literary source need be sought. There seemto be no parallels for the two
kinds of snow in (iii), but the distinction could again be based on direct observation.
lOS, stating that snow does not fallout at sea, is also from Bede De natura rerum
35 (or from his source, Pliny Natura/is historia 2.234). 106 is an explanation of 105
("Nam calida est aqua salsa et terrenum frigus impedit ne aerem super se attingat")
that may be added by DMC. 107-117 seemsto be a later insertion, because it is not
about snow, but it digresses from the mention of the warmth of salt water to discuss:
(i) whether various heavenly bodies feed on salt or fresh water or both (107-108);

(ii) why water feels cold (109-112);

(iii) why rainwater is fresh, whereas mists come from salt water (113-117).

Besides the intrusive subject matter, the quaestio-format of (ii) and (iii) ("Fit ques-
tio" 109,113, "solvitur" 110) shows that this is a later stratum ofDMC. The theory
that the sun feeds on salt water vapors whereasthe moon feeds on fresh water is picked
up from 1.84, which is from Bede De natura rerum 41 (from Pliny Natura/is historia
2.222-223). Salt water is not specified in connection with the sun at Isidore OrIgines
3.49 or Bede De natura rerum 19.13117 ("Nam si dulces aquas per algam [marisadd
MV] colaveris, amarescent; si salsasaquas per dulcem terram, mitescunt"; the second
half is only in T) may owe something to Bede De natura rerum 38: "Sed quae harum
[scil. aquae salsae.aquae dulcis] naturalis sit quaeritur. Vtraque autem deprehenditur
dum in alterutrum refundi-haec per marinorum holerum cineres, ilIa per humum
diffusa-queant" (which is from De ordine creaturarum 9.3, Pi 83.935-936).

13Fora full collecrionof other passages

seeA. S. Pease.ed.. M. Tullii CiceronisDe naturadeorum III
2 (Cambridge. Mass.1958. repro 1968)635-636. note to 2.40 OceaniqueIZiIIturumoribus.
 SENECA AND ANAXAGORAS IN PSEUDO-BEDE 117

Hail (118-124)

Senecadiscussed hail in Book 4b; only the latter part of his discussion survives. After
the section heading (118), DMC 119 repeats part of 98, and 120 gives an explanation
of hail very close to the explanation of snow in 103 (103 "Cum humores nebularum
ascendunt, si terreno frigore preveniuntur, in nives convertuntur," 120 "Que,i4 si
terre!lo frigore in cadendo preveniuntur, in grandinem commutantur et dealbantur").
Then two kinds of hail are distinguished (120-121 "quarum duplex est genus. Nam
minuta nivi admixta venit in frigore; alia in vernis et estivis diebus, et magis in die
quam in nocte"). As with the two kinds of snow in 104, there seemto be no parallels
in classicalsources. Again the distinction could be based on the author's own obser-
vation. The area from which DMC originates gives ample opportunity for observing
hail and snow.
122-124 give an assortment of information that is not related to hail specifically,
but rounds off the section on water (61-124), before the section on air (125-156) be-
gins. 122 says that sometimes clouds rise higher, thin, and scatter, and leave a clear
sky; 123 saysthe waters drawn up by the sun fall more frequently on the sea than on
the land. No literary sourcesare known. 124 offers an etymology of manubiae for which
there is no parallel.

Winds (125-133)

SenecaBook 5 discusses winds. In DMC, after the sectionheading (125)and a transi-

tional sentence(126), an explanation of wind is given (127), the four winds are
described(128), and objectionsto the explanationareanswered(129-130). Then two
further explanationsare given (131, 132-133). The three explanationsare:
(i) water,whichmovesnatUrally,movesthe air (127; comparisonwith 129shows
that the commashouldcomeafter, not before,natura/iter,and after "naturally"
in Burnett's translation);
(ii) a light breeze(called aura on land, altanus at sea)hits mountains, and is
churned up (131);
(iii) the motion of the heavenlybodiescausesthe air to move (132-133).
Mountainsplaya slightly different role in Bede De natura rerum 26; seeIsidore De
naturarerum 36.2, citing Pseudo-ClementRecognitiones8.23.230-231. For the dis-
tinction betweenaura and altanus,seeIsidore Origines13.11.16-18,BedeDe natura
rerum 27, Pliny Naturalis histona 2.114. The influence of heavenlybodies is more
briefly invoked at IsidoreDe naturarerum 36.1 (' 'Quod cum eveneritoccultiorequo-
dam motu caelestiumvel terrenommcorpommper magnum spatium mundi, ventus
vocaturexdiversispartibus caelinomina etiam diversasortitus''). Again there is noth-
ing Senecanhere.

14Quehere refersto nubes,but T has "que prevenitur." referring to pluvia.

D.
E.
 118 HARRY M. HINE

Thunder and Lightning (134-1~~2)

Seneca'ssecond book is about thunder and lightning. After the section heading (134),
DMC 135 describes the formation of thunder and lightning when the four cardinal
winds converge and make the clouds clash (i). 136 distinguishes tonitrus, fu/gur (or
fu/guratio) andfu/men-thunder, lightning-flash, and thunderbolt. 137-140 deals
with the thunder stone. 141 and 142 give two other explanations of thunder: (ii) a wind
bursts out of a cloud, like an inflated bladder bursting (141); or (iii) rising particles
of moisture meet descending particles of fire and a noise results, as when red hot iron
is dipped in water (142).
As Burnett notes, (ii) could well be abbreviated from Isidore Origines 13.8.2-3, and
(iii) follows Bede De natura rerum 29 closely, with the addition of the illustration of
the blacksmith ("daturque similitudo [quaedam add. M] de fabro [ferrum calidum
tingente in aqua add. MV]").15 The expression daturque simt'/itudo shows that this
is a reference to a source rather than an appeal to the writer's own observation. Bur-
nett 71 says "DMC adds the example of the blacksmith, from Seneca" (Natura/Ques-
tions 2.17.1). But Lucretius 6.148-149 and Pliny Natura/is histona 2.112 have similar
illustrations about the blacksmith .16
Burnett refers to Isidore Ongines 13.7-9 asthe source of 135-136, but the resem-
blance is a general one, and nothing in Isidore properly corresponds to the four winds
converging and causing the clouds to collide. What is striking, however, is the use of
the wordfu/guratio as an alternative to fu/gur (136), for the former word is Senecan
(Natura/Questions 2.12.1 et passim). Isidore",by contrast, gives only fu/gus, fu/gur,
andfu/men at Ongines 13.9. Senecamay have coined the wordfu/guratio, which is
othetwise found only in some late Greco-Latin glossaries(see Thesauruslinguae /atinae
s.v.) and, in the formfu/goratio, inScotus Eriugena's translation ofPriscianus Lydus
So/utiones. 17Once more the vocabulary of DMC is possibly Senecan. (See Appendix
1 for funher possible Senecaninfluence in this part of DMC.)

G. Dew, Frost, and "Estas" (143-148)

Seneca probably discussed dew and frost in the lost part of Book 4b. After the title
(143), DMC 144-145 describeshow the formation of dew is variously attributed to the
moon or the planet Venus. The connection between the moon and dew was common-
place in antiquity; 18see, for example, Virgil Georgica 3.337; Pliny Naturalis histona
18.277,282; Egnatius quoted in Macrobius Saturnalia 6.5.12, Isidore De natura re-
rum 18.6. The connection with Venus is found at Virgil Georgica 1.288, Pliny Natura/is
histona 2.38, Censorinusfragment 3.5.
146 very briefly describes the formation of frost. As Burnett 6 says, 147-148, on
cauma and estas, seem to preserve popular ideas.

"For other illustrationsaddedby DMC ct. 1.22-23,wherein modum ancilisandin modum scutelleare
added to the material taken from MartianusCapella6.592.
16ForGreek examples,seeHine (n. 10 above)on the Senecapassage.
17InSupplementum Aristotelicum 1.2, ed. I. Bywater(Berlin 1886),p. 87.21ff. I am grateful to Dr.
D. R. Howlett for supplying me with this reference.
loCf. D. R. ShackletonBailey, "Interpretations of Propertius," ClassicalQuarterly41 (1947)90.

F.
SENECA AND ANAXAGORAS IN PSEUDO-BEDE 119

H. Shooting Stars(149-151)

Shooting stars are the topic of SenecaNatural Questz"ons1.1 and 1.14-15. DMC 149
describes the formation of shooting stars when winds make the upper air collide with
the lower: "Preterea, ventis imminentibus, inferior iste aer superiori colliditur; uncle
scintille prosiliunt, que stellarum casum imitantur." Burnett (72) comments: "Only
in DMC is collision regarded asthe cause of the falling stars." But collision is a factor
in SenecaNatural Questz"ons 1.1.5-8; see 1.1.5 "At cum levius collisus et, ut ita dicam,
frictus est (scil. aer), minora lumina excutiuntur," and collzsain 1.1.8. 150 insists that
stars do not really fall ("Revera autem numquam aliqua stellarum, fixa seu vaga,
decidit");compare Seneca 1.1.9: "Illud enim stultissimum, existimare aut decidere
stell as aut transilire aut aliquid illis auferri et abradi." 151 preservesa piece of folk
belief (Burnett 6).

Rainbowsand RelatedPhenomena(152-156)

There is a detailed discussionof rainbowsand related phenomenain Natura/ Ques-

tions 1.2-13. DMC 152is the ti!;le. The text of 153is difficult and needsdiscussion.
Burnett prints: "Fit pretereaarcusin aere,qui oppositamplagam tenet a Sole,et, ut
dicunt physici,Solnubesaquosaset concavas reverberat,non multum confenas,unde
diversitatismundanecoloresillis innascuntur,qui tamenexnimia distantialiquide dis-
tingui non possunt." Here diversitatismundanec%res, "colors of worldly diversity,"
is an implausiblephrase.Burnett's "all the differentcoloursof the eanh" overstretches
the Latin (and, incidentally, producesa falsehood,for somecolorsare not found in
the rainbow-though suchconsiderationsare not overwhelmingin the caseof DMC).
T has dz'versitatismille c%res et amp/ius,which leavesdiversitatzsdangling clumsily.
One might think of diversitatismirande (and perhapsone should insert mzJ/etoo?)
c%res, "(a thousand)colorsof amazingvariety." CompareSenecaNatura/ Questions
1.3.1 "illam mirabilem arcusvarietatem"; Ovid Metamorphoses6.65 (quoted in
Seneca1.3.4), "diversi niteant cummille colores."For the thousandcolorsof the rain-
bow seealso Ovid 11.589ff.; Virgil Aenez'd4. 700-701, 5.88-89, 5.609.
Later in the sentenceMT have "qui tamenexminima (nimia V] distantia," which
is right. The wholesentencethen reads:"Fit pretereaarcusin aere,qui oppositampla-
gam teneta Sole,et, ut dicunt physici, Solnubesaquosaset concavasreverberat,non
multum confertas,unde diversitatismirande <mille?> coloresillis innascuntur, qui
tamen ex minima distantia liquide distingui non possunt." The many colorsof the
rainbow" cannotbe distinguishedclearlybecauseof the very smalldistance(berween
them)," that is, they are too closelypackedtogetherto be distinguished. Compare
SenecaNatura/Questions 1.3.4(quoting Ovid Metamorphoses 6.65-67): "Sed nunc
'diversi niteant cummille colores,transitusipse tamenspectantialumina fallit: usque
adeoquod tangit idem est, tamenultima distant.' Videmus in eo aliquid flammeiali-
quid lutei aliquid caeruleiet alia in picturaemodumsubtilibuslineis ducta, ut, an dis-
similes colores sint, scire non possis nisi cum primis extrema contuleris. Nam
commissuradecipit, usqueeo mira ane naturae;quod a simillimo coepit, in dissimil-
limo desinit."
In 154Bedeis cited by name,from De naturarerum 31. But, paceBurnett 72, the
120 HARRY M. HINE

section we.have been discussing (153) is not especially close to Bede, and prima facie
"Beda autem" (154) distinguishes Bede from thephysici of 153. In this passage,as
Burnett notes, physici cannot, assometimes elsewhere, refer to Macrobius. The most
likely candidate is Seneca,for, besidesthe resemblancesto Senecaalready noted, com-
pare "nubes aquosaset concavas" with Seneca1.3.11 "Illud dubium essenulli potest,
quin arcus imago solis sit roscida et cava nube concepta"; though compare also
Apuleius De mundo 16: " ...imago solis vel imago lunae umidam et cavam nubem
densamque ad instar speculi colorat. ..."
155 reads in Burnett's text: "Sunt aliquando etiam duo arcus, quia Luna similiter
arcum facit." This is a curious statement, for it seemsto imply that a solar and lunar
bow are visible simultaneously, which is intrinsically implausible; and in any casethe
next part of the sentence ("plenum tamen ...pluviis") saysthe lunar bow is a differ-
ent shape. (But there the author seemsto be confused, for the last part of 155 describes
a halo, not a bow. Maybe the source[s] mentioned lunar rainbows and lunar haloes
separately, but DMC has wrongly identified them.) T, however, omits quia, and has
a stop after arcus, which is much more satisfactory, giving two separate statements
about double (solar) rainbows and lunar bows: "Sunt aliquando etiam duo arcus. Luna
similiter arcum facit." The only mention of a double rainbow in a Latin author known
to me is in Pliny Natura/is histona 2.151. But double rainbows are quite common, and
personal observation might be the source. Lunar rainbows, however, are rare: they are
mentioned, among Latin authors, by Seneca Natura/ Questions 1.3.1, 1.10, and
Apuleius De mundo 16 (quoted above). Pliny N(Ztura/ishistona 2.150 mentions Aristo-
tle's statement that rainbows occur at night, but denies it.
156 tells how, when a bow (or halo) starts to break up, sailors expect winds from
the side where the break begins. Burnett 72 (his lemma "157" is a misprint for "156")
refers to Seneca 1.2.5. Pliny Natura/is historia 18.346 also says that a break in a halo
indicates wind, but DMC is slightly closer to Seneca,who also mentions sailors. But
notice that Senecaand Pliny refer to solar haloes,whereasDMC seemsstill to be talking
about lunar bows or haloes. But the confusion in 155b has already been noted, so 155b
may obscure a transition to haloes in general.

2. SENECA IN DMC

This survey of the sources of the meteorological sections of DMC has confirmed that
Isidore Orzgz'nes and De natura rerum and Bede De natura rerum are the main sources,
But a good deal of material comes from neither or them, and this includes a number
of places where vocabulary or content suggests that Senecamay be a source, particu-
larly in the sections on shooting stars and rainbows and related phenomena, The Sene-
can evidence is summarized in the following table, which states which book of Seneca
is in question, and also lists the other authors that might be the source on each point,
Section ofDMC Topic PossibleSources

54 arteriaein tanh Seneca 3

54-5 traconesor draconesin tanh Seneca 3, Isidore Diff
136 fulguratio Seneca 2,
glossaries, Scotus
Eriugena
SENECA AND ANAXAGORAS IN PSEUDO-BEDE 121

SectionofDMC ToPic PossibleSources

142 blacksmithsimile Seneca2, Lucretius,

Pliny
149 formation of shooting starsby collision Seneca1
150 nature of shooting stars Seneca1
153 colors of rainbow Seneca1, Apuleius
155 double rainbow Pliny
155 lunar rainbow Seneca1, (Pliny),
Apuleius
156 wind forecastingfrom haloes Seneca1, Pliny

Cumulatively the evidence of the above table strongly suggeststhat Senecais a direct
sourceofDMC. The mention of the double rainbow in 155 at first sight suggests that
Pliny is a source, but, ashas been pointed out above, double rainbows can be observed
fairly often, so there is no need for a literary source at all. In other places in DMC where
there is possible Plinian material, it seemsto come via Bede, and there is no other evi-
dence for direct use of Pliny. For several of the other topics, taken individually, other
sourcesare feasible, but Senecais the only source where all or even most of the topics
are found, so the most economical hypothesis is that he is the source in every case, or
at least in most cases.
The hypothesis may be taken a stage further if it is remembered that our texts of
Seneca's Natural Questions are incomplete, lacking the end of Book 4a on the Nile,
and the first part of Book 4b on rain, snow, and hail. If the author of DMC had ac-
cessto a complete text of the Natural Questions, then the first part of Book 4b might
have given him his distinctions between different kinds of snow (104) and hail (120-
121)-though, as I have already said, these distinctions could be based on his own
observation-and it might have colored his description of their causes(103, 120). But
one must be cautious: as the above table shows, only three of the surviving books of
the Natural Questions are used in DMC, not Book 5 on winds or Book 6 on earth-
quakes. This could be either becauseDMC had an incomplete text, or because only
patchy use was made of a complete text.19 Other identifiable sources are exploited
rather haphazardly by DMC, so the larter alternative is perfectly plausible.

3. ANAXAGORAS IN DMC

The hypothesisthat DMC had access to a text of the Natural Questionsmore complete
than oursmust be put forwardvery hesitantly,but it might help to explaina puzzling
feature of DMC, its treatmentof the philosopherAnaxagoras.He appearsthree times
in DMC (1.17in T, 1.22and 11.64in MV), which is interesting in itself, becausethe
only other pre-Socraticphilosophersto get a mention are Thales,Heraclitus,and Py-
thagoras,with one referenceeach(11.65,11.64,and 1.231 respectively,the first rwo
passages only in MV). One of the referencesto Anaxagorascanbe straightforwardly

19Inmany manuscripts of tht NlZturlll Questions Books 4b-7 prectdt Books 1-4a, and this was tht original
order (Stt Hint [no 10 above] 4-19); but it would be hazardous to conjecture anything about tht book ordtr
of the manuscript usr:d by DMC.
122 HARRY M. HINE

explained: the account of his view of the shape of the eatth at 1.22 is taken from Mat-
tianus Capella 6.592. The other two references are hatder to interpret. At 1.17 there
are major textual vatiants. MY read: "Rursus per recontextionem [recontractionem M]
tetra diluitur in aquam, aqua tenuatur in aerem, aer transit in ignem." T, however,
has a very different text:
Rursusper retextionemtectaattenuata transit in aquam,aqua in aerem.De aerein ig-
nemnulla fit retexio[lege retextiojsecundumAnaxagoram,quia ignemmateriamet prin-
cipium omnium rerum voluit a nullo sumereexordium.

It looks as though the second sentence of T contains an additional comment about

Anaxagoras which has ousted the original statement, preserved by MV, that air turns
to fire. This comment, that according to Anaxagoras air does not turn to fire, is pre-
cise; and it is intriguing, for two reasons. First, the reasongiven for his view in the quia
clause is curious: if fire is constantly turning to air but is not being replenished, does
that not imply that the total amount of fire in the cosmos is continually decreasing,
so that eventually it will all be extinguished? And secondly, how does the whole sen-
tence square with what we know of Anaxagoras from elsewhere?
This passageofT should be considered along with 11.63-65, which is only in MV,
not in T:
De hac animarumorigine diversediversorumsuntsententie.64. Quidam enim dicebant
animamesseconflatam exathomis ignis, imitantes Anaxagoram[AnaxoramV] et Hera-
clitum, qui volebant ignem omnium rerum esseoriginem. 65. Quidam dicebant illam
essesanguinemcordis,imitantes ThaletemMilesium, qui asserebant
[fortasseasserebat?]
omnia ex humore constare.

The principal source at this point is Calcidius, 214-225, a review of theories of the soul.
For the soul as atoms of fire, see Calcidius 215 ignitae atomi; for the soul as blood in
the heart, Calcidius 218-219; and (as Burnett notes) DMC II.66, on the Stoics,is based
on Calcidius 220. Calcidius, however, associatesthe fiery atom theory with Democri-
tus (and a slightly different atomic theory with Epicurus); the heart's blood theory he
links with Empedocles and the Hebrew scriptures. But he says nothing corresponding
to "imitantes Anaxagoram et Heraclitum, qui volebant ignem omnium rerum esse
originem," or to "imitantes Thaletem Milesium, qui assereba[n]t omnia ex humore
constare." These clausesare additions to the Calcidian material. They are not partic-
ularly apposite additions, for the view that the soul is made of fiery atoms (or of water)
does not entail, nor does it necessarilyfollow from, the view that everything originates
from fire (or water). And of course the statement about Anaxagoras is quite wrong:
he did not say that everything originated from fire, for his doctrine of ' 'everything in
everything" denied primacy to anyone substance. It was common knowledge down
to late antiquiry that Thales said water was the source of everything, and that HeraclitUs
said fire was.2oBut it is a mystery why anyone should have thought that Anaxagoras
too made fire the source of all things. No doctrine of Anaxagoras's readily comes to
mind that would lend itself to such a misinterpretation.
So we have in MV at II.64, and in T at 1.17, a statement that Anaxagoras made fire

2OFor Thalesd. Pease's commentary(n. 13above)on CiceroDe naturaa'eorum1.25aquam ...initium

rerum; for Heraclitusd. Peaseon 3.35 Heraclitum ...sequentes. Serviusin Aen. 11.186,cited by Bur-
nett on 11.64-65,is not the only possiblesource.
SENECA AND ANAXAGORAS IN PSEUDO-BEDE 123

the source of everything, and in T an additional statement that he denied that air could
turn into fire. One might dismiss this as one of the more bizarre aberrations of DMC,were
it not for an intriguing resemblance to a passage of Simplicius' s commentary on
Aristotle's Physics: opwv ouv 1t&V £X 1tIXV'tO~i\VOfLe.VOV, e.(XIX! fLTj &fLtIJw~ &AA& XIX't& 'ta~\v
(XIX! i&p £X 1tUpO~&Tjp XIX! £~ &tpO~ uowp XIX! £~ UOIX'tO~i'ii XIX! £X i'ii~ ALGO~XIX! £X ALGou 1ta-
A\V 1tGp) ...; "Seeing, then, everything coming to be out of everything, if not directly
then serially (for air comes from fire, water from air, earth from water, stone from earth,
and fire again from stone) " Compare what Simplicius says a few lines later: 1tpO~

'tOU'tO Ot £v'iiie.V rIJw~ XIX! 'to fLe.VOV'twv't\VWV iLVe.IJGIX\&1t' IXU'tWV IXAAIXWO'7te.p£X ALGou 1tUP
XIX! £~ UOIX'tO~1tOfLq10AUiL~0V't0~&tPIXj "With reference to this he perhaps introduced also
the point that from some things others come to be while they persist, such as fire from
stone and air from bubbling water. "21 It has been argued22 that the illustration in

brackets in the first quotation is Simplicius's addition, because Anaxagoras himself used
the word IX(GTjprather than 1tUp, but this need only mean that Simplicius or his source
has substituted 1tGp for IX(GTjp.Part of the sequence given by Simplicius, air-water-earth-
stone, is confirmed by Anaxagoras's own words: &1tO 'tou'ttWV &1tOXP\VofLtvwv IJUfL1tof)jVU'tIX\
iii' £X fLtV i&p 'tWV Ve.q1e.AWV
uowp &1tOXpLVe.'tIX\,£X Ot 'tau UOIX'tO~i'ii, £X Ot 'rii~ i'ii~ ALGO\IJUfL-
1tof)jVUV'tIX\U1tO'tau <puX?OU, ou'tO\ Ot £xxwptOUIJ\ fL&AAOV'tau UOIX'tO~; "From these things,
as they are separated off, the earth is solidified; for water is separated off from the
clouds, earth from water, and from earth stones are solidified by the cold: and stones
tend to move outwards more than water.' '23 It has been assumed that the Simplicius

passage is based on the fragment, but one should be caurious, for, firstly, the frag-
ment does not mention the change from fire to air or from stone to fire, and secondly,
the last clause of the fragment is rather obscure. It is usually, and probably correctly,
taken to refer to the formation of heavenly bodies, which Anaxagoras said were made
of stone.24 If Simplicius is based on the fragment, he interprets it, and does not sim-
ply reproduce it.
The Simplicius passage mentions fire coming from stone, but not from air. If this
(whether rightly or wrongly) is taken to be a complete statement of Anaxagoras's views
on the transmutations of the elements, then by implication Anaxagoras denied that
air turns to fire. That is exactly what MS T says at DMC 1.17. Unless DMC depends
ultimately on Simplicius, which seems highly unlikely, its evidence suggests that some
other source in antiquity attributed to Anaxagoras a sequence of transmutations of the
elements like the one given by Simplicius.2' But how could manuscripts of DMC
preserve a fragment of the ancient doxographical tradition about Anaxagoras that
otherwise appears only in Simplicius?

21Simplicius, In Anstotelis Physicornm It"brosquattuor pnores commentaria, ed. H. Diels, Commemaria

in Aristotelem graeca9 (Berlin 1882) 460 lines 12-14 and 20-22. The translations are taken from M. Schofield,
"Doxographica Anaxagorea," Hermes 103 (1975) 1-24, at 9.
22F.M. Kleve, The Philosophy ofAnaxagoras (New York 1949) 86 n. 10. The main evidence for Anax-
agoras's terminology is Aristotle, De caelo 1.3, 270b24-5; this and other passagesare collected in H. Diels
and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker 2, ed. 11 (Zurich 1964) 17 (A43), 23-24 (A73) and 25 (A84).
23Greek text in Diels and Kranz 40, frag. 16. Translation from G. S. Kirk et aI., The Presocratic
Philosophers ed. 2 (Cambridge 1983) 372.
24SeeDiels and Kranz 5-6 (Al.8-10), 8 (A6), 9 (AII-12), 16 (A42.6), and 23 (A72).
2'Whether the theory is genuinely Anaxagorean is quite another matter that need not concern us here.
Schofield (n. 21 above) 8-13 has argued that the surrounding context ofSimplicius is Theophrastean, so
it is not improbable that this sentence is too. Why should Anaxagoras have thought that fire comes from
124 HARRY M. HINE

There is a possibility that Senecawas the source. Anaxagoras is mentioned several

times in. the surviving books of the Natural Questions (2.12.3, 4a.2.17, 4b.3.6, 6.9.1,
7.5.3),26though never a propos of the transmutation of the elements. He was also men-
tioned in the lost first part of Book 4b, aswe can infer from 4b.3.6: "Quare non et
ego mihi idem permittam quod Anaxagoras? Inter nullos magis quam inter
philosophos essedebet aequa libertas." Plainly Anaxagoras had been used as an ex-
ample of philosophical/ibertas, but we have to guesswhy Senecahad picked on him
for this purpose. It has been suggested that Senecahad made fun of his notorious the-
ory that snow is black,27 for snow is one of the principal themes of Book 4b. It is pos-
sible that Seneca digressed to discuss other odd ideas of Anaxagoras's (rather as he
digresses from the immediate subject of comets to catalog the errors of Artemidorus
at 7.13-14). In Book 4b he is in a mood to make fun of philosophers he respects(see
4b.3.2 on Posidonius, 4b.6-7 on unspecified Stoics), and of the citizens of Cleonae
(4b.6.2-3), so Anaxagoras may have received similar treatment. Perhaps among the
doctrines that Senecaridiculed was the alleged denial that fire came from air. Hence,
conceivably, DMC could have obtained its information about Anaxagorasfrom Seneca.

4. CONCLUSION

Cumulatively, the evidence makes it plausible that DMC drew on Seneca's Natural
Questions. That it drew on a more complete text of the Natural Questions than we
possessis an attractive hypothesis, but it musrremain very tentative. What are the his-
torical implications of these conclusions? As we have seen, there was a manuscript of
the Natural Questions at Reichenau in the ninth century. DMC may plausibly be
linked with that manuscript, for it is in exactly the right locality: the manuscripts of
DMC, aswe have seen, come from Switzerland or southern Germany, whereasthe sur-
viving twelfth-century manuscripts of the Natural Questions come from elsewhere,
France and northern Germany. The link between DMC and the Reichenau manuscript
of Senecais even closer if Jones was right to connect DMC's astronomy with the dia-
gram in another ninth-century manuscript from Reichenau. The dating of DMC is dis-
puted, as we have seen. If the old ninth-century date is correct, then we have an exact
chronological fit with the Reichenau Senecamanuscript. If DMC is rather of eleventh-
or twelfth-century date, then we have to think of the Reichenau manuscript, or a copy,
surviving for a couple of centuries. Further investigation ofDMC may settle the chrono-
logical problems,28 but in any casewe have shed new light on the precarious fortunes

stone?Maybevia his belief that the fiery heavenlybodiesaremadeof stone; alternatively,or additionally,
becausefire isproduced from (flint) stonesby percussion;that is the likely referenceof lines 20-22 of Sim-
plicius, quoted above.Note, furthermore, that the creationof fire from stonewould reversethe continual
depletion of fire that seemsto be implied by T's commentat DMC 1.17. DMC, however,in stating that
fire is the sourceof everythingfor Anaxagoras,apparentlypresupposes that nothing elsetUrnsbackinto fire.
260n 2.19 seeHine (n. 10 above)ad loco
27H.M. Hine, .'Senecaand Anaxagorason Snow", Hermes 108(1980)503.
28Whetheror not the Anaxagoreanmatetial is from Seneca,it is significantthat it is distributed between
the MY and T versions:this suggeststhat it may havebeenincorporatedat, or shortlybefore,the time when
the two versionswerediverging.
SENECA AND ANAXAGORAS IN PSEUDO-BEDE 125

of Seneca'sNatural Questionsin the Middle Ages,and on the resourcesusedby the

author of DMC.

Department of Humanity (Latin)

University of SaintAndrews
Saint Andrews,ScotlandKY16 9AL

APPENDIX 1: DMC 137-140

There is funher possible Senecaninfluence in DMC 1.137-140, a panicularly tangled

passage,so 1 have relegated discussionto an appendix. There are some significant diver-
gences between MV and T. 1 give their texts in parallel:

MV T

Nascitur ibi preterea quidam lapis, quod
[qui MI vel nimie compressioni, vel [nimie
...vel om. VI nimio calori, vel nimio
frigori potestis attribuere [potest attribui
MI. 138 Quod [quia MI expressio hoc [hec
VI possit [possit hoc MJ efficere, videtur sa-
tis ubi lacteus [lactes VI humor coagulatur;
139 quod [qui MI vero calor diversis modis
res mulceat aut let VI consolidet. apparet in
limo [ililimoVI; 140 quod autem frigus
duritiem [-iam VI faciat [facit VI, videtur in
metallis liquefactis, ut etiam in ferro; la-
pides dissilire facit. lignum findit. aquam
constringit.
Nasciturpreteria [sic] ibi lapis quidarn,
quod vel nimie compressioniaut nimio
calori aut nimio frigori potestisattribuere.
138Quod expressiohoc possitfacere,
videtur ubi liquor lacteuscoagulatur; 139
quod calordiversismodis res mulceat aut
consolidetvidetur in limo; 140<***>
videtur in metallis liquefactis similiter fer-
rum frigus et lapidesdissilire facit aquam
constringit.

This is in the main a clearly organized section: 137 saysthe stone formed where light-
ning strikes could be attributed to three causes,compression, heat, or cold. In 138-
140 there are illustrations of how these three forces can produce solids: 138 milk coagu-
lates under pressure(scil. in cheese-making); 139 mud is hardened by heat; 140 (down
tofe"o) liquid metals are solidified by cold. The second half of 140, however, flies
off at a tangent: "lapides dissilire facit, lignum findit, aquam constringit." The fact
that cold may sha~terstones (cf. Isidore OrIgines 13.10.8 "Similis enim vis est caloris
et frigoris, unde et utraque saxa rumpunt") or split wood (does it?) is irrelevant to its
hardening propenies.
One might consider the possibility that a new sentence starts at Lapides, with the
subject notfngus but fulmen. Admittedly T's text is against this, but it is garbled:
"Quod autem frigus duritiem faciat" is omitted, and T continues: "viderur in metallis
liquefactis similiter ferrum frigus et lapides dissilire facit aquam constringit" (thus
omitting lignum findit). Here frigus is in an awkward position, as though it is a gloss.
Other considerations suggest that a new sentence may begin at Lapides. The discus-
sion of the thunder-stone in 137-140 is an interruption, in that 141-142 follows on
from 135-136, adding alternative explanations of thunder to the one in 135. Since the
126 HARRY M. HINE

secondhalf of 140 does not cohere completely with the first half, it maybe belongs with
135-136 and 141-142. The change of subject fromfrzgus to fulmen postulated in 140b
is very abrupt, but it is explicable if the whole of 137-140a is a later insertion, and 140b
originally followed on directly from the end of 136, where fulmen is the subject.
But is there not a knock-down argument against thinking 140b refers to lightning?
For, though lightning may shatter stonesand split wood, who would everhave thought
that it "aquam constringit"? A possible answeris that in two places Seneca saysthat
wine-he does not mention water-is solidified by thunderbolts (Natural Questions
2.31.1,2.52.2), and he even discussesat length why (allegedly) such solidified wine,
when melted, drives mad those who drink it (2.53.1-2). Furthermort;, the first pas-
sage of Senecaalso refers to the destructive effects of thunderbolts on stone and on trees
(2.52.1-2 "Valentiora, quia resistunt, vehementius dissipat Cum lapide fer-
roque et durissimis quibusque confligit ...[so 2] in arbore quod aridissimum est urit,
quod durissimum et solidissimum est terebrat et frangit, summos cortices dissipat, in-
teriores libros [in parte interiori arboris] rumpit ac scindit, folia pertundit ac stringit").
I know no ancient parallel for any of these effects of thunderbolts. Indeed, as far as
wood is concerned, several ancient Greek authors give instances of wood being un-
harmed by a thunderbolt which melted metal which was artached to the wood or con-
tained inside a wooden box (Aristotle, Meteorologica 3.1, 371a24-26; Arrian, Physico-
rum fragmenta 3 ed. de Roos 1967p. 189.13-22; Plutarch, Quaestionesconvivales 4.2,
665B-C). So there is a chance that DMC's confused text at 140b depends on Seneca.29

APPENDIX 2: FURTHER NOTFS ON THE SOURCESOF DM!:

Thesebrief notes supplementBurnett's ApparatusII (pp. 71-74). The abbreviations

are those given in Burnett's edition, pp. 15-16.

I. De mundo
8-11 Isidore Etym. 4.5.3-4, DNR 11.3; Bede De temporum ratione (D1R) 35.
19 Cf. alsoBede DNR 7.
20 Bede, DNR 3 ("terra, quae mundi media atque ima", from Pliny Nat. 2.11),46.
34-36 Macrobius Comm. 2.6.4-7.
80-81 This accountof the relationshipbetweenthe height of the tides and the phasesof the
moon gets it all the wrong wayround. MacrobiusComm. 1.6.61, the sourceat this point,
is correct,and so is T, which has: "Nam ea(scil. luna)incipiente crescere,decrescitmareper
VII dies; per totidem augetur;decrescit
quoqueusquead vicesimumprimum; augeturad max-
imum ad vicesimumoctavum". One could emendMV's text, substituting decresc-for cresc-
and vice versa,but their versionwasperhapsmuddled from the stan.

29Qnefurther point in the text of 140 needsdiscussion.MV read (on V's punctuation seebelow):
...vzaetur in metallis liquefactis ut etiam in felTO; T hassimiliter femtm rather than ut etiam in felTO.
It looksasthough an afterthought about iron hasbeeninsened in the text in two different forms. V punc-
tuatesasfollows: ...in metallis liquefactis.ut etiam in felTOlapidesdissilirefacit. ...I.e., V thinks that
iron is parallelto stonesbeingshattered,not to metalsbeingsolidified. T hasno punctuation. M hasa strong
pauseafterfelTO,making iron parallel to solidified metals. Where doesfemtm belong?Either wayis possi-
ble. Obviously iron is a metal that can bemelted. For iron shatteredby thunderbolts, seeSenecaNatural
Questions2.52.1, quoted above.
SENECA AND ANAXAGORAS IN PSEUDO-BEDE 127

166-168 The term monoidos is a misunderstanding of the Greek !l7JYOELO~~

in Martianus Capella
8.864.
172 Cf. Martianus 6.711.
176-178 Martianus8.868.
189 Cf. also Macrobius Comm. 1.19.15.
193 DMC's statement that the planet Venus appeared at the funeral games for Julius Caesar
is a historical howler: it was a comet that appeared, at the games of Venus Genetrix. DMC
may misremember Seneca QN 7.17.2,30or Pliny nat. 2.93, or Iulius Obsequens De prodigiis
68, or Servius on Aenet.d8.681, all of whom refer to Venus and the comet in the same sen-
tence. (Or a carelessreading of Ovid Metamorphoses 15.843-851, where Venus transporrs Cae-
sar to heaven, might give the impression that the planet Venus is in question, if t'lla in 848
is mistakenly referred to Venus.)
207 Cf. also Martianus 8.857,879, Calcidius 77-84.
249, 254 MV are confused about what acronychal risings and sertings are. T, at 249 (quoted
in Burnert's apparatus), gets it right, being closer to Calcidius 71. T omits 254.
297ff. Cf. perhaps Ambrose Hexameron 2.3.9ff.
311 MV put the dtes bissextus 6 days before the Ides of March, but T agrees with Bede D1R
38 (and the truth), purring it 6 days before the Kalends. T reads: "quia [lege qui MV] bis-
sextus dicitur, eo quod Ibis MV] in sexto kalendas marcii computetur."
339-341 Macrobius Comm. 1.6.50, d. Calcidius 115.
349 Cf. Bede D1R 29.
369 Macrobius Comm. 1.15.14.
373-374 Hyginus Astronom. 2.43.

II. De anima
5 The statementabout the quinan"us.which is not in Servius.is perhapsbasedon a misun.
derstanding of MacrobiusComm. 1.6.20.
35 irrigua mole corponsis an odd phrase.Perhapsthe author has takentoo literally influen.
tem and materialis alluvionis in MacrobiusComm. 1.12.7.
37 MacrobiusComm. 1.11.12.
40 What DMC attributes to Macrobius(Comm. 1.12.17)is not really what Macrobiussays.
50 Cf. Isidore Etym. 18.22.
90-91 Cf. also MacrobiusComm. 1.13.5-6.
95 Calcidius 219. quoting Genesis4.10.

Wfhe errormight havebeendue to corruptionin the manuscriptsof Seneca,for the 'f branchherereads
"(cometes)qui post [postom. .x] divi Iulii ludis VenerisGenitricis ...emersit" (whereasthe other branch
[ZI.2] haveexcessum after Juli,). The misconceptionfound in DMC might ariseif dilli Juliiwere takenwith
Iudis and stella wereunderstoodwith Venens-although the restof the sentenceis plainly about comets.
Note that there is no other evidenceof DMC using Natural QuestionsBook 7.