Fiona Sappenfield (Brown University)
In book 3 of the Natural Questions, Seneca criticizes the knowledge offered by poets and offers his natural philosophy as an alternative. Through his treatment of the cyclical cosmic flood in 3.27-30, he shows that while poets are focused on the past and narrow human concerns, he can see the bigger picture and so both explain the present and predict the future. In doing so he argues for the importance of reading natural science.
My argument relies on three generally accepted premises. First, that the Natural Questions teaches both science and ethics. Powerful arguments have been made made for this idea (e.g. Inwood; contrast Rosenmeyer) and many narrower arguments reinforce it (e.g. Williams on NQ 5). Second, that Seneca considers Lucretius a predecessor and rival and so is self-consciously competing with a poem. Third, that book 3 was originally the first book (Hine).
When Seneca follows the preface to NQ 3 with four hexameter lines (Met. 3.407; Aen. 1.245f.; Lucilius on Sicily) about specific bodies of water [NQ 3.1.1], isolated lines of poetry are contrasted unfavorably with the grand scale and elevated concerns of the preface. The subsequent discussion, which explains both fundamental principles of the water cycle and the behavior of specific bodies of water [3.1-26], further highlights the littleness of the poets’ topic and treatment. Poetry returns in the flood passage [3.27-30], which has two aspects: one anthropocentric and narrow, one scientific and broad. The work endorses the latter (Williams). These perspectives can be roughly aligned with poetry and natural philosophy respectively. When Seneca criticizes Ovid’s treatment of the prehistoric flood [Met. 1.244-380] as illogical and frivolous [3.27.13-15], he highlights the divergence of poetry from nature, which implicates it in vice.
Vice causes the flood, which eliminates mankind [3.30.7]. It reverses civilization narratives like DRN 5.907ff., Georg. 1.118-59, and Met. 1.68ff: one day wipes out humanity [3.29.5; 9]. The deluge forces a return to prehistoric foraging [3.27.4f.] and then wipes out society [3.27.11-13], place names [3.29.8], and fabulae like Charybdis and Scylla [3.29.7]. Whereas poetry can only describe past events and not always well, the Natural Questions predicts the future, a future in which the mythical and historical subjects of poetry have been erased and only nature remains.
At the start of the Natural Questions, Seneca “corrects” the priorities of poetry, which focuses on past events and colorful details rather than knowledge which will enrich the audience’s understanding of science or morality. Just as he finds historiography mendacious and mundane (Master), he finds poetry trivial. This criticism establishes Seneca’s learning and literary seriousness and sells his audience on the utility of his work. If Stoic nature is God, then the Natural Questions offers both an epiphany of the divine and instructions for how to approach it. It is both useful and sublime. Poetry cannot compete.