No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2019
It is undeniable that the form of Seneca's Epistulae Morales we currently read is a work of literature, literature being here defined as a piece of work the author intended to publish. What Seneca claims in Ep. 21.3–5 is clear evidence of this:
exemplum Epicuri referam. cum Idomeneo scriberet et illum a uita speciosa ad fidelem stabilemque gloriam reuocaret, regiae tunc potentiae ministrum et magna tractantem, ‘si gloria’ inquit ‘tangeris, notiorem te epistulae meae facient quam omnia ista quae colis et propter quae coleris’. […] quod Epicurus amico suo potuit promittere, hoc tibi promitto, Lucili: habebo apud posteros gratiam, possum mecum duratura nomina educere.
It is my pleasure to thank Andrea Balbo, Andrew Laird, Ermanno Malaspina, Victoria Rimell and Jula Wildberger, who have read various drafts of this paper, giving me fundamental suggestions for improving it. I am also grateful to Philip Barras, Elisa Della Calce, Giovanna Garbarino, Bardo Maria Gauly, Bruce Gibson, Laura Nigro, Aldo Setaioli, Gareth Williams, Michael Winterbottom and an anonymous reader. It goes without saying that I alone am responsible for any remaining deficiencies.
1 The idea that the Epistulae Morales are real letters destined to be published is already in Cugusi, P., Evoluzione e forme dell'epistolografia latina nella tarda repubblica e nei primi due secoli dell'impero con cenni sull'epistolografia preciceroniana (Rome, 1983), 195Google Scholar; Mazzoli, G., ‘Le Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium di Seneca. Valore letterario e filosofico’, ANRW 2.36.3 (1989), 1823–77, at 1850Google Scholar; Lana, I., ‘Le «Lettere a Lucilio» nella letteratura epistolare’, in Grimal, P. (ed.), Sénèque et la prose latine (Vandœuvres, 1991), 253–311, at 260Google Scholar; and Setaioli, A., ‘Epistulae morales’, in Damschen, G. and Heil, A. (edd.), Brill's Companion to Seneca. Philosopher and Dramatist (Leiden, 2014), 191–200, at 194Google Scholar. For a general status quaestionis concerning the debate on the fictional or non-fictional character of the Epistulae Morales, cf. Mazzoli (this note), 1846–50, with an update in Setaioli (this note), 193 n. 19.
2 The suggestion that QNat. 4a praef. was originally a letter, but is no longer in its present form (cf. note 6 below), is crucial for the development of this article, as it rules out the possibility that Seneca intended to follow the established custom of writing prefaces in epistolary form. This is somehow corroborated by Janson, T., Latin Prose Prefaces. Studies in Literary Conventions (Stockholm, 1964)Google Scholar, who does not take QNat. 4a praef. into account when discussing epistolary prefaces.
3 It may be recalled that in Ep. 121.18 Seneca alludes to previous letters on the conciliatio sui in the animal kingdom, but such letters are not in the preserved collection, probably because Seneca himself decided to exclude them: cf. Albertini, E., La composition dans les ouvrages philosophiques de Sénèque (Paris, 1923), 167Google Scholar and Grimal, P., Sénèque, ou la conscience de l'Empire (Paris, 1979 2), 456Google Scholar. Those who maintain that Seneca's Letters are fictional should perhaps give a reasonable explanation of this supposed fake reference to fake non-preserved letters. Reynolds's study of the textual tradition of Seneca's Epistulae Morales gives credit to the existence of a third—now lost—volume of letters on the grounds of Gellius’ testimony (NA 12.2.2–3), but implicitly rules out the hypothesis of lost letters in the middle of the extant collection: see Reynolds, L.D., The Medieval Tradition of Seneca's Letters (Oxford, 1965), 17Google Scholar and passim. Inwood, B., Seneca. Selected Philosophical Letters (Oxford, 2007), 343Google Scholar comments: ‘We don't seem to have these letters, though roughly similar material is mentioned at 82.15 and 116.3.’ Graver, M. and Long, A.A., Seneca. Letters on Ethics to Lucilius (Chicago, 2015), 577Google Scholar refer to those same letters, though without further discussion. Yet, there is no reference whatsoever to animals at Epp. 82.15 and 116.3, while Seneca clearly says: ut in prioribus epistulis dixi, tenera quoque animalia et materno utero uel ouo modo effusa quid sit infestum ipsa protinus norunt et mortifera deuitant. Even ignoring Reynolds's authoritative statement and admitting that ‘some letters are missing within the collection rather than just at the end of it’ (Inwood), it would be a little too speculative to claim that at least two—the only two!—letters touching upon the conciliatio sui in the animal kingdom got lost. Conversely, it is far easier to suppose that Seneca was a little careless in editing Ep. 121, where he accidentally forgot the reference to letters which he did not include in the collection that he decided to publish.
4 Lana (n. 1) and Williams, G.D., ‘Double vision and cross-reading in Seneca's Epistulae Morales and Naturales Quaestiones’, in Wildberger, J. and Colish, M.L. (edd.), Seneca Philosophus (Berlin, 2014), 135–65Google Scholar.
5 Codoñer, C., L. Annaei Senecae Naturales Quaestiones (Madrid, 1979), 1.xii–xxiGoogle Scholar; Hine, H.M., L. Annaei Senecae Naturalium Quaestionum Libri (Stuttgart, 1996), xxii–xxvGoogle Scholar; Parroni, P., Seneca. Ricerche sulla natura (Milan, 2008 3), xilxGoogle Scholar; Gauly, B.M., Senecas Naturales Quaestiones: Naturphilosophie für die römische Kaiserzeit (Munich, 2004), 66–7Google Scholar; F.J.G. Limburg, ‘Aliquid ad mores: the prefaces and epilogues of Seneca's Naturales Quaestiones’ (Diss., Leiden, 2007), 11–12; Williams, G.D., The Cosmic Viewpoint. A Study of Seneca's Natural Questions (New York, 2012), 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar agree on this order.
6 Codoñer, C., ‘La physique de Sénèque: ordonnance et structure des Naturales Quaestiones’, ANRW 2.36.3 (1989), 1779–822, at 1812Google Scholar; Gross, N., Senecas Naturales Quaestiones: Komposition, naturphilosophische Aussagen und ihre Quellen (Stuttgart, 1989), 150Google Scholar. Some hints can already be found in Peter, H., Der Brief in der römischen Litteratur. Litterargeschichtliche Untersuchungen und Zusammenfassungen (Leipzig, 1901), 228Google Scholar and Delatte, L., ‘Lucilius, l'ami de Sénèque’, LEC 4 (1935), 367–85 and 546–90Google Scholar. Cf. also Gauly (n. 5), 210 n. 84 and Limburg (n. 5), 187–8. However, we owe the most explicit formulation to Lana (n. 1), 279.
7 Delatte (n. 6), 562 and 568; Codoñer (n. 6), 1812. Although he does not specify that QNat. 4a praef. seems to be an epistle, Abel, K., ‘Das Problem der Faktizität der Senecanischen Korrespondenz’, Hermes 109 (1981), 472–99, at 492 nGoogle Scholar. 86 too maintains that § 20 probably announces the epistolary correspondence. For the (ostensible) lack of decisive connections between the Epistulae Morales and the Naturales Quaestiones, cf. Abel (this note), 492. In particular, Williams (n. 4), 140–1 and n. 26 objects that Delatte locates QNat. 4a in a.d. 62, an early and too convenient date according to him. But see below, § V. Moreover (at 143–5), he interprets the presence of this sort of prefatory letter as a literary device designed by Seneca to show the differences between a confining perspective at the beginning of his work (Sicily and everyday life of QNat. 4a, the second book of the Naturales Quaestiones according to Williams) and a universalist viewpoint in the following books of the Naturales Quaestiones. Even though this could be a valid reason for inserting this letter in the QNat., I think that the tight connections between QNat. 4a praef. and other letters (Ep. 34.2, in particular) will show that this letter has also a remarkable importance beyond the context of the Naturales Quaestiones.
8 For an opposite point of view, cf. Donini, P.L., ‘L'eclettismo impossibile. Seneca e il platonismo medio’, in Donini, P.L. and Gianotti, G.F., Modelli filosofici e letterari. Lucrezio, Orazio, Seneca (Bologna, 1979), 149–300, at 226Google Scholar.
9 Cf. Epp. 8.6 and 68.2. On the tight relationship between maiora and meliora in Seneca, cf. Dial. 3.13.1 and 1.6.5.
10 On scientific investigation as part of the uita contemplatiua, cf. Gauly (n. 5), 214. On Seneca's regret for his previous attention to uita actiua, cf. Epp. 8.3, 68.12 and QNat. 3 praef. 2.
11 Cf. Ben. 4.14.4, where iniecta manu is the act of an inanimate subject: quid magnifici est se amare, sibi parcere, sibi adquirere? ab omnibus istis uera beneficii dandi cupido auocat, ad detrimentum iniecta manu trahit et utilitates relinquit ipso bene faciendi opere laetissima. In the two other Senecan instances of iniecta manu (Ben. 6.16.7 and Dial. 9.7.2), the hint to the proceeding of the manus iniectio might more easily be deducible. For the occurrences of manus iniectio and manum inicere in Seneca and other authors, cf. Malaspina, E., L. Annaei Senecae De clementia libri duo (Alessandria, 2001), 255 and 273Google Scholar.
12 Armisen-Marchetti, M., Sapientiae facies. Étude sur les images de Sénèque (Paris, 1989), 107Google Scholar.
13 H.M. Hine, Seneca. Natural Questions (Chicago, 2010), 56 rightly translates iniecta manu of QNat. 4a praef. 20 by ‘I shall grasp hold of you’, and explicitly links this instance to the manus iniectio.
14 I am well aware that the presence of such an item in the Epistulae Morales can be explained as a fictional device—cf. Peter (n. 6), 230 n. 1; Bourgery, A., ‘Les Lettres à Lucilius sont-elles de vraies lettres?’, RPh 35 (1911), 40–55, at 46Google Scholar; Griffin, M., Seneca. A Philosopher in Politics (Oxford, 1976), 417Google Scholar; and Hachmann, E., Die Führung des Lesers in Senecas Epistulae Morales (Münster, 1995), 17Google Scholar—but I have some doubts whether the same explanation can be valid for the presence of a similar item in the Naturales Quaestiones as well. Cf. p. 325 below.
15 Cf. Berno, F.R., L. Anneo Seneca. Lettere a Lucilio, libro VI: le lettere 53–57 (Bologna, 2006), 227Google Scholar. Cf. also Epp. 40.1, 55.9, 66.4, 67.2, 75.1.
16 Cf. Cugusi (n. 1), 73. Compare the classic definitions of epistula in Demetr. Eloc. 223 (εἶναι γὰρ τὴν ἐπιστολὴν οἷον τὸ ἕτερον μέρος τοῦ διαλόγου) and in Cic. Phil. 2.7 (amicorum colloquia absentium). Cf. Corbinelli, S., “Amicorum colloquia absentium”. La scrittura epistolare a Roma tra comunicazione quotidiana e genere letterario (Naples, 2008), 23–4Google Scholar; von Albrecht, M., Wort und Wandlung. Senecas Lebenskunst (Leiden, 2004), 165CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Williams (n. 4), 155.
17 Cf. Rosati, G., ‘Seneca sulla lettera filosofica: un genere letterario nel cammino verso la saggezza’, Maia 33 (1981), 3–15, at 10–11Google Scholar; Corbinelli (n. 16), 148–9; and Setaioli (n. 1), 195.
18 Cf. Rabbow, P., Seelenführung. Methodik der Exerzitien in der Antike (München, 1954), 213Google Scholar; Cancik, H., Untersuchungen zu Senecas Epistulae morales (Hildesheim, 1967), 76–7Google Scholar and Limburg (n. 5), 189.
19 Cf. Codoñer (n. 6), 1812.
20 The relationship between these two loci and QNat. 4a praef. 20 has already been indicated by Gauly (n. 5), 211 n. 87.
21 M. Davies, ‘A commentary on Seneca's Epistulae Morales Book IV (Epistles 30–41)’ (Diss., Auckland, 2010), 315. The same idea is already in Peter (n. 6), 230 and Albertini (n. 3), 291 and n. 1. On the other hand, Setaioli, A., Facundus Seneca. Aspetti della lingua e dell'ideologia senecana (Bologna, 2000), 119Google Scholar claims that the assimilation between epistula and sermo is more evident in Ep. 75.1. Cf. also Corbinelli (n. 16), 23 and 166. As far as style is concerned, even though I would agree with Dietsche, U., Strategie und Philosophie bei Seneca (Berlin and Boston, 2014), 100Google Scholar, that very often ‘Senecas Schreibweise ist […] trotz gegenteiliger Beteuerungen alles andere als inlaboratus et facilis’, I do not think that Seneca's style can be used as evidence of the fictional character of his Letters—unlike von Albrecht (n. 16), 11. Since Seneca wanted to play the role of a moral guide for his friend Lucilius so as to ‘lead him to something better’ (ad meliora perducam of QNat. 4a praef. 20), it is quite evident that he could not but resort to an adequate style, the only way to put into effect one of his most important tenets: concordet sermo cum uita (Ep. 75.4).
22 Cf. Hadot, I., Seneca und die griechisch-römische Tradition der Seelenleitung (Berlin, 1969), 170Google Scholar and Setaioli (n. 21), 118–19. Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that, according to Demetrius (Eloc. 224), a letter requires a more formal style than a dialogue.
23 Henderson, J., ‘Journey of a lifetime: Seneca, Epistle 57 in Book VI in EM’, in Garbarino, G. and Lana, I. (edd.), Incontri con Seneca. Atti della giornata di studio. Torino, 26 ottobre 1999 (Bologna, 2001), 123–46, at 131Google Scholar specifies: ‘The method required is “step-by-step”, that “daily work-out” regimen (pedetemptim procedere; exercitatio cotidiana, 40.7, 13)’. I accept the customary definition of ‘spiritual exercises’ suggested by Rabbow (n. 18), aware that it should not be confused with the same definition adopted to designate the practices of St. Ignatius of Loyola, whose goals were very different—cf. Newman, R.J., ‘Cotidie meditare. Theory and practice of the meditatio in imperial Stoicism’, ANRW 2.36.3 (1989), 1473–517, at 1476 n. 6Google Scholar and Setaioli, A., ‘Ethics I: philosophy as therapy, self-transformation, and Lebensform’, in Damschen, G. and Heil, A. (edd.), Brill's Companion to Seneca. Philosopher and Dramatist (Boston and Leiden, 2014), 239–56, at 247Google Scholar. On the importance of spiritual exercises in ancient and Stoic philosophy, cf. Rabbow (n. 18); Newman (this note); Hadot, P., Exercises spirituels et philosophie antique (Paris, 2002 2), 19–74; and Dietsche (n. 21), 74–86Google Scholar.
24 Simple thematic analogies will not be my concern in this paper. They are already highlighted not only in typical commentaries but also in studies such as Schultess, F., De L. Annaei Senecae Quaestionibus Naturalibus et Epistulis commentatio (Bonn, 1872)Google Scholar and Gercke, A., Seneca-Studien (Leipzig, 1895), 324–6Google Scholar, which contain lists of loci paralleli between the Epistulae Morales and the Naturales Quaestiones.
25 Codoñer (n. 6), 1812.
26 The singularity of this occurrence is much more significant, if we consider that the verb scribo is generally infrequent in the Naturales Quaestiones: both in this work and in the Epistulae Morales, there is no occurrence of scribit; in 3 praef. 6 scribunt refers to unknown historians who wrote Hannibal's gesta, in 7.20.2 scripta to Posidonius’ work; the occurrences of 2.32.1 (scriberentur), 4b.5.1 (scribere) and 5.18.8 (scribimus) are worthless to this end. On this sense of inquis in the Epistulae Morales, cf. Bourgery (n. 14), 46 and Scarpat, G., Lucio Anneo Seneca. Lettere a Lucilio. Libro primo (Brescia, 1975), 52Google Scholar; for a similar use in the Naturales Quaestiones, cf. Vottero, D., Questioni Naturali di Lucio Anneo Seneca (Torino, 1989), 23 n. 5Google Scholar; Limburg (n. 5), 192–3 (in QNat. 4b, for example). Gauly (n. 5), 80–5 shows that inquis has also other attitudes within the Naturales Quaestiones.
27 On inuicem see above, pp. 322–323.
28 Gercke (n. 24), 326.
29 Griffin (n. 14), 350 n. 3 and cf. 347. Abel (n. 7), 492 and Williams (n. 4), 142–3 seem to agree with Gercke and Griffin.
30 Abel (n. 7), 492.
31 This seems to be an example of what Dietsche (n. 21), 124 n. 2 calls ‘Überzeugen durch Komplimente’; cf. also Dietsche (n. 21), 238.
32 I would not go as far as to conclude that scio quam is absolutely ironic, even though it might be in a certain way.
33 Cancik (n. 18), 16; Hadot (n. 22), 8 n. 14. fac belongs to that ‘Terminologie der Direktion’, which is typical of the epistolary genre, not only of Seneca's—cf. Hadot (n. 22), 168–9 and n. 33. I do not understand why she considers the causarum inquisitio as part of the paraenesis, since she herself quotes (at 8 n. 13) the passage of Ep. 95.65, where Seneca clearly says that Posidonius considers it necessary in addition to praeceptio and suasio, but not as their subcategory.
34 The scientific nature of the Naturales Quaestiones, made explicit right from the title and inevitably touched upon in almost every contribution dealing with this work, has been stressed, among others, by Lana, I., Lucio Anneo Seneca (Turin, 1955), 12Google Scholar; Hadot (n. 22), 116; Donini (n. 8), 229; and Berno, F.R., Lo specchio, il vizio e la virtù. Studio sulle Naturales Quaestiones di Seneca (Bologna, 2003), 23Google Scholar. The moral nature cannot instead be taken for granted from the title, but is immediately evident to any reader of this work and has been highlighted by Berno (this note), passim; Gauly (n. 5), 87–90 and passim; Williams (n. 5), 54–92.
35 Cf. Donini (n. 8), 262.
36 According to Codoñer, C., ‘La expresión del poder en Seneca’, in De Vivo, A. and Cascio, E. Lo (edd.), Seneca uomo politico e l'età di Claudio e di Nerone. Atti del Convegno internazionale (Capri 25–27 marzo 1999) (Bari, 2003), 55–88, at 85–6Google Scholar, populus has mostly a pejorative meaning in Seneca, very close to turba. On the separation from the crowd in Seneca's work, cf. Marchesi, C., Seneca (Milan, 1944 3), 282–5Google Scholar; Pohlenz, M., Die Stoa. Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung (Göttingen, 1992 7), 315Google Scholar; Motto, A.L. and Clark, J.R., ‘Seneca on the profanum uulgus’, CB 69 (1993), 35–9Google Scholar; Grilli, A., Vita contemplativa. Il problema della vita contemplativa nel mondo greco-romano (Brescia, 2002), 59 and 260Google Scholar; Laudizi, G., Lucio Anneo Seneca. Lettere a Lucilio. Libro terzo (epp. XXII–XXIX) (Naples, 2003), 230 and 248Google Scholar; von Albrecht (n. 16), 148; in the Epistulae Morales in particular, cf. Lana (n. 1), 279.
37 Scarpat (n. 26), 136.
38 Above all, cf. Schottlaender, R., ‘Epikureisches bei Seneca: ein Ringen um den Sinn von Freude und Freundschaft’, Philologus 99 (1954), 133–48Google Scholar and Mazzoli, G., Seneca e la poesia (Milan, 1970), 259–60Google Scholar. Against the theory of Lucilius’ Epicurean tendency, cf. recently Dietsche (n. 21), 42–3, whose only argument is that there would be no point in urging an Epicurean to avoid Cynic extremism in Ep. 5.1–2. However, Seneca is not explicitly referring to or condemning Cynicism; rather, he is generally reminding his reader that philosophers should avoid excesses in the way they behave—and this fits any strand of philosophical thought.
39 I consider tenuous, for example, the argument put forward by Schottlaender (n. 38), 136 that inuideas licet of Ep. 20.9 implies Lucilius’ Epicureanism, because—to borrow the words of Griffin (n. 14), 351 n. 2—‘Lucilius is playfully expected to resent Seneca's use of his own Epicurus against him’. Despite agreeing with this reading, it is my contention that the reasoning only works as long as we assume that Lucilius was an Epicurean sympathizer, but is no evidence for it.
40 Cf. Schottlaender (n. 38), 136–7.
41 For a list of the instances of noster / nostri in Seneca, cf. Berno (n. 15), 264. On the different use of noster when referring to Virgil, cf. Berno (n. 15), 308 and, above all, Setaioli, A., ‘Esegesi virgiliana in Seneca’, SIFC 37 (1965), 133–56, at 155–6Google Scholar. On noster with reference to Demetrius, cf. Kindstrand, J.F., ‘Demetrius the Cynic’, Philologus 124 (1980), 83–98, at 90CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Demetrius as model of the perfect sage, cf. in particular Ben. 7.8.2–3 with Costa, S., «Quod olim fuerat». La rappresentazione del passato in Seneca prosatore (Hildesheim, 2013), 300–5Google Scholar.
42 Cf. Garbarino, G., Philosophorum Romanorum fragmenta usque ad L. Annaei Senecae aetatem (Bologna, 2003), 138–9Google Scholar. The passages in question are in Epp. 8.10 and 24.21 and QNat. 3.1.1.
43 Mazzoli (n. 38), 260.
44 Hor. Epist. 2.2.173 nunc prece, nunc pretio, nunc ui, nunc morte suprema; Verg. Aen. 2.445 extrema iam in morte parant defendere telis and 11.846 extrema iam in morte, neque hoc sine nomine letum. The testimony of (Ps.-)Probus’ Vita Vergilii is sufficient to show that the Romans considered Virgil an Epicurean sympathizer: uixit pluribus annis liberali in otio secutus Epicuri sectam, insigni concordia et familiaritate usus Quintilii Tuccae et Vari.
45 Cf. Wildberger, J., ‘The Epicurus trope and the construction of a “Letter Writer” in Seneca's Epistulae Morales’, in Wildberger, J. and Colish, M.L. (edd.), Seneca Philosophus (Berlin, 2014), 431–65Google Scholar.
46 Despite the fact that neither does he believe that the Letters are genuine nor does he take into account the manipulation of Epicurean tenets made by Seneca, Dietsche (n. 21), 140 points in the same direction of an integration of principles belonging to different philosophical schools.
47 Schottlaender (n. 38), 139. On his allusion to a sort of manipulation of Epicurean tenets, cf. Schottlaender (n. 38), 176.
48 Cf. Oltramare, P., Sénèque. Questions Naturelles (Paris, 1929), 247 n. 1Google Scholar: ‘Ce n'est donc pas pour lui [i.e. Lucilius], mais pour les lecteurs que Sénèque décrit cette contrée.’ With regard to Pompeii as Lucilius’ homeland, cf. Delatte (n. 6), 368–9 and Berno (n. 15), 46.
49 I want to specify that I said ‘written’ and not ‘set’ not only because I do not think that the Epistulae Morales are fictional—as it should by now be clear—but also because I cannot imagine that, knowing what had happened to Pompeii, Seneca would have been able to ignore this fact even in a literary work. Moreover, it would also imply that the circumstances which led Seneca to write these letters (i.e. his visit to Pompeii and Naples) are fake themselves, but this would signify the loss of a fundamental reason to choose the epistolary form—cf. Albertini (n. 3), 236; Rabbow (n. 18), 104; Rosati (n. 17), 9; Setaioli (n. 1), 194; and, above all, G. Mazzoli, ‘Effetti di cornice nell'epistolario di Seneca a Lucilio’, in A. Setaioli (ed.), Seneca e la cultura (Perugia, 1991), 67–87. On the other hand, we could not even think that Pompeii had already been rebuilt when Seneca saw it at the time of Epp. 49 and 70, since archaeological evidence proves that it was a construction site for many years and that some works were still in progress when Mount Vesuvius erupted in a.d. 79—cf. Greca, F. La, ‘I terremoti in Campania in età romana e medioevale. Sismologia e sismografia storica’, Annali Storici di Principato Citra 5 (2007), 5–34, at 21Google Scholar.
50 According to Peter (n. 6), 237, the expression secundo naumachiae spectaculo of Ep. 70.26 refers to the second naumachia organized by Nero (the first was organized by Julius Caesar in 46 b.c.), an event which he sets in a.d. 64. Hence, Ep. 70 could not have been written before a.d. 64. However, as Scarpat, G., Lucio Anneo Seneca. Anticipare la morte o attenderla. La lettera 70 a Lucilio (Brescia, 2007), 93Google Scholar highlights, secundo may also refer to the second day of the first naumachia. Moreover, the description of the Neronian naumachia that we find in Dio Cassius (62.15) has no hints which permit its date to be fixed and it is actually positioned between events of a.d. 62 and 64.
51 Wallace-Hadrill, A., ‘Seneca and the Pompeian earthquake’, in De Vivo, A. and Cascio, E. Lo (edd.), Seneca uomo politico e l'età di Claudio e di Nerone. Atti del Convegno internazionale (Capri 25–27 marzo 1999) (Bari, 2003), 177–91, at 177Google Scholar.
52 Cf. Vottero (n. 26), 178–9 and Wallace-Hadrill (n. 51), 179–80 and 183 for a concise status quaestionis. Cf. also Gauly (n. 5), 23. Resorting to both archaeological and literary sources (cf. Suet. Tib. 74 and Ner. 20; Tac. Ann. 15.33–4; Plin. Ep. 6.20.3), although he accepts a.d. 62 for the Pompeian earthquake, La Greca (n. 49), 19 shows that many earthquakes hit the Campanian region before a.d. 79. This fact may corroborate the thesis of Henry, M., ‘L'apparition d'une île: Sénèque et Philostrate, un même témoignage’, AC 51 (1982), 174–92, at 177Google Scholar, according to which Tacitus and Seneca refer to two different earthquakes.
53 Among those who believe that Regulo et Verginio consulibus is a gloss are Jonas, F., De Ordine Librorum L. Annaei Senecae Philosophi (Berlin, 1870), 53–4Google Scholar; Lana (n. 34), 17; Codoñer (n. 5); Hine, H.M., ‘The date of the Campanian earthquake a.d. 62 or a.d. 63, or both?’, AC 53 (1984), 266–9, at 268Google Scholar (more cautious is H.M. Hine, ‘Rome, the cosmos, and the emperor in Seneca's Natural Questions’, JRS 96 [2006], 42–72, at 72); Vottero (n. 26), 178–9; Gauly (n. 5), 23; and Williams (n. 4), 139.
54 Against the hypothesis of a gloss, see Wallace-Hadrill (n. 51), 190–1 and Parroni (n. 5), 573.
55 Cf. e.g. Hine (n. 53 [2006]), 72. hic fuit motus Regulo et Verginio consulibus Ψ: Regulo et Verginio Rufo consulibus hic fuit motus Z.
56 Hine (n. 53 [2006]), 72.
57 Hine (n. 53 [2006]), 72 n. 125.
58 Tyros aliquando infamis ruinis fuit; Asia duodecim urbes simul perdidit; anno priore Achai<am> et Macedoni<am>, quaecumque est ista uis mali quae incurrit nunc Campaniam, laesit. Cf. Parroni (n. 5), 573: ‘Più semplice pensare a un'incongruenza di Seneca’.
59 Cf. Hine (n. 53 [2006]), 68–72 and Wallace-Hadrill (n. 51), 180–3. After all, it would not be the first case of Seneca's vagueness in making calculations: see n. 61 below.
60 On the chronological order of the letters and their internal references, cf. Peter (n. 6), 236; Albertini (n. 3), 45 and 198; Lana (n. 34), 300; Russell, D.A.F.M., ‘Letters to Lucilius’, in Costa, C.D.N. (ed.), Seneca (Boston, 1974), 70–95, at 72Google Scholar; Griffin (n. 14), 400; Cugusi (n. 1), 197–8; Grimal (n. 3), 220–4; Mazzoli (n. 1), 1851; Laudizi (n. 36), 74–5; Setaioli (n. 1), 192; and Dietsche (n. 21), 32. On the evolution of Lucilius’ and Seneca's personalities within the Epistulae Morales, cf. Mutschmann, H., ‘Seneca und Epikur’, Hermes 50 (1915), 321–56, at 322–3Google Scholar and Wildberger (n. 45).
61 I recall that the order of the books of the QNat. which is considered to be the most probable is 3, 4a, 4b, 5, 6, 7, 1, 2: cf. above. On the destruction of Lugdunum as an absolute date, cf. Mazzoli (n. 1), 1851. We owe to Jonas (n. 53), 62 the merit of recognizing that in Tac. Ann. 16.13.3 the words urbis casibus allude to the fire of Rome of July a.d. 64. For a summary of further options of dating—in any case by now oscillating between August and the autumn of a.d. 64—cf. Viti, A., ‘Seneca, Ep. 91: Liberale e l'incendio di Lione’, Paideia 52 (1997), 397–406, at 401Google Scholar and Gavoille, É., ‘L'incendie de Lyon dans la lettre 91 de Sénèque’, in Guillaumont, F. and Laurence, P. (edd.), La présence de l'histoire dans l'epistolaire (Tours, 2012), 347–64, at 348CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the sake of honesty, we have to specify that, in the past, Ep. 91 was also dated to a.d. 58, because Seneca says in 91.14 that Lugdunum was one hundred years old when it was destroyed and it is common knowledge that it was founded by Lucius Munatius Plancus in 43 b.c. (cf. Dio Cass. 46.50). Anyway, even if we neglected Jonas's breakthrough, we could agree with Bourgery (n. 14), 41 that 100 is a symbolic round number and that Seneca ‘est un moraliste, non un historien’—cf. also Viti (this note), 401 n. 20.
62 Hine (n. 53 [2006]), 71.
63 Such dates agree with the hypothesis of Delatte (n. 6), 376, according to which Lucilius was sent to Sicily in a.d. 61.
64 Apparently, the comparison between Ep. 49 and Ep. 70 could raise another problem: Schultess (n. 24), 39–40 maintains that the expression post longum interuallum Pompeios tuos uidi of Ep. 70 does not make much sense if we think that Seneca had visited Pompeii just a little time before, when he wrote Ep. 49. Thus, he believes that Ep. 70 was written before Ep. 49 and before the other epistles concerning Seneca's Campanian tour (51–7). However, Peter (n. 6), 235 and Albertini (n. 3), 199 n. 2 give an acceptable explanation of this supposed incongruity, arguing that Ep. 70 refers to Seneca's visit of the city, while in Ep. 49 Seneca is only looking at Pompeii from far. This reasoning is particularly persuasive if we interpret Neapolis in the sentence ecce Campania et maxime Neapolis ac Pompeiorum tuorum conspectus incredibile est (Ep. 49.1) as a nominative (and not as a genitive): in fact, it would stress the difference between what Seneca saw from far (Pompeii) and where he actually was, namely Naples, as the following epistles confirm. But, after all, we must not forget that this passage is affected by relevant textual problems: according to the manuscripts, we should read ecce Campania et maxime Neapolis ad [a p] Pompeiorum tuorum conspectum incredibile est eqs. Therefore, any hypothesis is advanced with some degree of tentativeness. Dietsche (n. 21), 34 instead thinks that the expression post longum interuallum of Ep. 70 is due to a lapse in concentration and that it is therefore a trace of the fictional character of the Epistulae Morales.
65 On the opposition between long and short chronology as well as their weaknesses, cf. the clear status quaestionis in Mazzoli (n. 1), 1850–3.
66 Cf. n. 3 above.