Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T00:01:31.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NATVRALES QVAESTIONES 4A PRAEF. 20 AND EP. 34.2: APPROACHING THE CHRONOLOGY AND NON-FICTIONAL NATURE OF SENECA'S EPISTVLAE MORALES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2019

Simone Mollea
Simone Mollea*
Affiliation:
The University of Warwick
*
S.Mollea@warwick.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , May 2019 , pp. 319 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 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.

However, this by no means implies that their nature is artificial or fictional, as many—perhaps most—Senecan scholars believe.Footnote 1 Furthermore, it is still worthwhile, once their ultimate literariness has been acknowledged, to investigate their genesis, for this may help us analyse the author's craft as well as go some way to revealing the historical circumstances behind their publication. Accordingly, I am going to portray the following scenario, according to which the Epistulae Morales should be considered real letters that an aged Seneca, reflecting daily on his experiences of human being, wrote to a friend.

QNat. 4a praef., originally a letter to Lucilius, sets up the beginning of a new atypical correspondence, in which Seneca tries to divert his friend Lucilius from his everyday concerns, at the same time directing him toward a more philosophical—that is, Stoic—way of life.Footnote 2 In order to do so and knowing that Lucilius is already an Epicurean sympathizer, at first Seneca tends to use Epicurean quotations (including some of Lucilius’ own verses), believing that this would be the easiest way to make his friend approach the new life. However, he manipulates these quotations in such a way as to convince Lucilius both that they can be considered Stoic as well, and that the Stoic doctrine is generally preferable, as it is more structured and complete. Ep. 34, explicitly recalling the intentions stated in QNat. 4a praef., draws up a provisional balance sheet of Lucilius’ significant improvement. Accordingly, the Epicurean presence in the following letters is much less considerable.

As implicitly emerges from this scenario, the first addressee whom Seneca had in mind must have been Lucilius, the sole addressee of both the Epistulae Morales and the Naturales Quaestiones, works which do not contain any explicit cross-references that urge readers of the one to become readers of the other as well. Of course, Seneca must have thought that, given the content of his letters to Lucilius, they—or most of themFootnote 3—might also be of use to a wider audience, perhaps after some changes or even taken one by one.

In support of my claim, I will first demonstrate the tight relationship between QNat. 4a praef. 20 and Ep. 34.2 (I). Further evidence will emerge from the comparison between QNat. 4a praef. 20 and other passages of the Epistulae Morales (II) and between QNat. 4a praef. as a whole and the Epistulae Morales (III). In a fourth section, I will then adduce several pointers to Lucilius’ Epicureanism (IV). Finally, by resorting to this sort of cross-reading of the Epistulae Morales with the Naturales Quaestiones—in the wake of Italo Lana and Gareth WilliamsFootnote 4—I shall also propose the following chronology for the Epistulae Morales and some books of the Naturales Quaestiones (V):

  • QNat. 4a                  before Ep. 34, or, more probably, before the first 34 letters (a.d. 61)

  • Ep. 18                      December a.d. 61

  • Epp. 23 –67            spring a.d. 62

  • Epp. 68 –70            before 5 February 63

  • QNat. 6 after 5        February 63

  • Epp. 86–91            summer a.d. 64

  • Ep. 122                  autumn a.d. 64

From the point of view of the Naturales Quaestiones then, this reasoning appears to bring new clues in favour of the order of the books fixed by the latest scholarship, that is to say, 3, 4a, 4b, 5, 6, 7, 1, 2.Footnote 5

I. QNAT. 4A PRAEF. 20 AND EP. 34.2: THE BEGINNING OF THE CORRESPONDENCE AND A FIRST BALANCE SHEET

That the preface to QNat. 4a is similar to any one of the Epistulae ad Lucilium has already been noticed by several scholars.Footnote 6 Delatte and Codoñer have also claimed that it could mark the beginning of the correspondence, but neither of them has furnished clear evidence of this, thus allowing other scholars to reject their thesis.Footnote 7

Yet, I think that a strong connection between QNat. 4a praef. 20 and at least one passage in the Epistulae Morales does exist. Evidence is brought by the comparison of these two passages:

hoc tibi, etsi diuidimur mari, praestare temptabo ut subinde te iniecta manu ad meliora perducam, et, ne solitudinem sentias, hinc tecum miscebo sermones. erimus una, qua parte optimi sumus. dabimus inuicem consilia non ex uultu audientis pendentia (QNat. 4a praef. 20).

adsero te mihi; meum opus es. ego cum uidissem indolem tuam, inieci manum, exhortatus sum, addidi stimulos nec lente ire passus sum sed subinde incitaui; et nunc idem facio, sed iam currentem hortor et inuicem hortantem (Ep. 34.2).

The nature of the content and the emphasized words in particular make the similarities appear clear, but they merit further examination.

First, in order to help Lucilius escape from everyday life, in QNat. 4a praef. 20 Seneca promises that he will not leave his friend to his own destiny, but will try to draw his attention, from time to time (subinde), to nobler themes, namely philosophical themes in their broadest sense. In Ep. 34.2, Seneca declares that he has kept his word: subinde incitaui. After all, if we consider the singular structure of QNat. 4a praef., the phrase ad meliora perducam is hardly restricted to the subject of the Naturales Quaestiones. Footnote 8 In contrast, when he resorts to words such as meliora, maiora, ampliora, Seneca generally refers to those activities typical of contemplative lifeFootnote 9—of which scientific investigation is obviously a considerable part, but not the only one—as opposed to those of active life, which inevitably not only characterized Lucilius’ everyday life but—to his great regret—also used to characterize Seneca's.Footnote 10

Second, the expression iniecta manu seems to be more emphatic and more meaningful if connected to inieci manum of Ep. 34.2. As we can see from several examples enumerated in TLL 7.1.1613.67–1614.15 and from at least one other occurrence in Seneca (Ben. 4.14.4), the ablative absolute iniecta manu may at times be regarded as a sort of crystallized phrase, whose link to the legal proceeding of the manus iniectio is not necessarily manifest or perceived.Footnote 11 Accordingly, it is not surprising that the passage of QNat. 4a praef. 20 is not listed by Armisen-Marchetti among those which designate ‘l'entrée en possession légitime d'un bien’ s.v. manum inicere, unlike that of Ep. 34.2, where this principle ‘s'applique […] au disciple, dont le maître “prend possession”’.Footnote 12 Yet, in both cases we should understand the hint to the legal proceeding of the manus iniectio, which is to say that iniecta manu also refers to the taking possession of Lucilius, although it represents a previous step to that of Ep. 34.2, a previous step when this manus iniectio has not yet happened.Footnote 13

Third, these two passages contain the only two occurrences in Seneca of the adverb inuicem with reference to Seneca himself and his interlocutor, Lucilius. However, if in QNat. 4a praef. 20 it is used in a context in which Seneca seems to propose the beginning of a double-sided correspondence, in Ep. 34.2 the situation is quite different, because it looks as if this correspondence is already going on.Footnote 14

In general, the contrasting use of tenses in QNat. 4a praef. 20 and Ep. 34.2 gives the impression that the latter represents a provisional balance sheet of the intentions stated in the former: the perfect tenses inieci, exhortatus sum, addidi, passus sum, incitaui and the present tenses adsero, es, facio, hortor replace futures like temptabo, miscebimus, erimus, dabimus.

II. QNAT. 4A PRAEF. 20 AND OTHER EPISTVLAE AD LVCILIVM

The tight relationship between QNat. 4a praef. 20 and the Epistulae Morales is also corroborated by other passages.

When in this paragraph of the Naturales Quaestiones Seneca says erimus una, qua parte optimi sumus, we note that the adverb una is used for the only time in the Naturales Quaestiones with reference to a ‘get together’ with friends, as often happens in the Epistulae Morales. Footnote 15 Obviously, this long-distance meeting can only be realized by means of a letter, whose aim is expressly to establish a colloquium with absentees, at least according to one of the most characteristic topoi of ancient epistolography (Latin, in particular).Footnote 16 There is more: judging from this passage, we can even state that a letter favours a conversation with the best part of an absent person, namely their inner part (pars interior).

The same idea is expressed in Ep. 55.9:

conuersari cum amicis absentibus licet, et quidem quotiens uelis, quamdiu uelis. magis hac uoluptate, quae maxima est, fruimur dum absumus; praesentia enim nos delicatos facit, et quia aliquando una loquimur, ambulamus, consedimus, cum diducti sumus nihil de iis quos modo uidimus cogitamus.Footnote 17

However, for the two friends to be una (‘together’), there must be a double-sided correspondence, the only way to effect a relationship between tutor (magister) and pupil (discipulus) that can benefit both.Footnote 18 It is evidently taken for granted that Seneca, when saying tecum miscebo sermones, alludes to the exchange of letters.Footnote 19 Nevertheless, what Seneca claims at the beginning of Ep. 38 and Ep. 75 not only is the confirmation of this meaning of sermo, but also allows further important reflection for the purpose of this paper.Footnote 20

merito exigis ut hoc inter nos epistularum commercium frequentemus. plurimum proficit sermo, quia minutatim inrepit animo: disputationes praeparatae et effusae audiente populo plus habent strepitus, minus familiaritatis. philosophia bonum consilium est: consilium nemo clare dat. (Ep. 38.1)

qualis sermo meus esset si una desideremus aut ambularemus, inlaboratus et facilis, tales esse epistulas meas uolo, quae nihil habent accersitum nec fictum. (Ep. 75.1)

While Seneca seems in the second quotation to be expressing the desire for his letters to have a style as inlaboratus et facilis as the style of sermo, in the first quotation ‘letters are the literary equivalent of conversation’.Footnote 21 The benefits deriving from this kind of communication are to be found in the continuation of Ep. 38 (38.2):

[sc. submissiora uerba] facilius intrant et haerent; nec enim multis opus est sed efficacibus. seminis modo spargenda sunt, quod quamuis sit exiguum, cum occupauit idoneum locum, uires suas explicat et ex minimo in maximos auctus diffunditur.

This last passage clarifies why Seneca wants to use letters as a communication medium: the choice of the epistolary correspondence is due not only to the long distance between the two friends but also to the benefits deriving from a more informal, immediate style.Footnote 22 This enables Seneca both to give his friend a few suggestions and teachings at a time, and to do it regularly, so as to achieve the optimum represented by daily spiritual exercises, on which a considerable part of ancient philosophical thinking (Stoic, in particular) is based.Footnote 23

III. OTHER PASSAGES OF QNAT. 4A PRAEF. AND THE EPISTVLAE MORALES

The connections between the Letters and QNat. 4a praef. are not limited to section 20 of the latter. Modern scholarship has already pointed out some of them, but either they merit further examination or should be reconsidered.Footnote 24

While reading the preface from its beginning, we immediately run into quemadmodum scribis (§ 1), whose importance Codoñer stresses, because this expression—she believes—together with tecum miscebo sermones of § 20 suggests the idea of an epistolary exchange.Footnote 25 Even so, this is the only occurrence of scribis in the Naturales Quaestiones against thirteen instances in the Epistulae Morales. Accordingly, Codoñer's reasoning can perhaps be pushed one step further, allowing the conclusion that in Seneca's Epistulae Morales there is the same opposition between inquis and scribis that can be found in Cicero's letters, where the first verb alludes to possible objections raised by his interlocutors, whereas the second refers to the content of letters actually received from them.Footnote 26 To this end, this fact could also be interpreted as a pointer to the non-fictional character of the Letters. If in the Epistulae Morales it could be seen as a device intended to give the impression of a real correspondence—like inuicem in Ep. 34.2—in the Naturales Quaestiones such use does not seem to make sense, since Seneca would not have any literary necessity of pretending an epistolary correspondence in this work.Footnote 27 Therefore, I do not see any reasons to doubt that it refers to a real letter written by Lucilius.

A few words later Seneca addresses Lucilius in this manner: scio quam sis ambitioni alienus, quam familiaris otio et litteris (§ 1). Gercke is probably the first to compare this phrase to the Briefkreis 19–22 and to declare that this comparison shows ‘eine auffällige Übereinstimmung in den Worten dagegen ein völliger Widerspruch im Inhalte’.Footnote 28 The contradiction to which the scholar alludes mainly consists in the fact that ‘in NQ 4, pref. I […] Lucilius is “ambitioni alienus”, but in Ep. 19–22 he has to be cured of ambition’.Footnote 29 Taking this assumption for granted, it would not be difficult to agree with Abel that ‘Man gewinnt den starken Eindruck, daβ die Briefe als Instrument sittlicher Selbstvervollkommnung für den Lucilius der Naturales quaestiones eigentlich überflüssig sind’, because it would really look as if QNat. 4a praef. displayed a situation subsequent to that of letters 19–22.Footnote 30 Nevertheless, I think that this interpretation does not hit the mark, because it does not sufficiently take the context into account (§ 1):

delectat te, quemadmodum scribis, Lucili uirorum optime, Sicilia et officium procurationis otiosae, delectabitque, si continere id intra fines suos uolueris nec efficere imperium quod est procuratio. facturum hoc te non dubito; scio quam sis ambitioni alienus, quam familiaris otio et litteris.

When Seneca says scio quam sis ambitioni alienus, quam familiaris otio et litteris, he is not (I propose) asserting a fact; rather, he is trying to persuade Lucilius that he must be ambitioni alienus and familiaris otio et litteris in order to continere id [sc. officium procurationis otiosae] intra fines suos […] nec efficere imperium quod est procuratio. Footnote 31 An expression such as scio quam somehow compels Lucilius not to disappoint his moral guide, not to reveal that he is not as uninterested in ambition (ambitioni alienus) as Seneca thinks he now is.Footnote 32 In this sense, facturum hoc te non dubito clarifies and confirms the projection into the future of the whole context. After all, if we accepted Gercke's explanation, we would find contradictions within the preface itself, with §§ 20–1 in particular. Both of these paragraphs reveal in fact that a great deal of work has yet to be done for Lucilius to remain unambitious. No doubt, this is implied in immo etiam a se recedendum of § 20, but becomes even more explicit in the paragraph that follows, when Seneca says (§ 21):

longe te ab ista prouincia abducam, ne forte magnam esse historiis fidem credas et placere tibi incipias quotiens cogitaueris: ‘hanc ego habeo sub meo iure prouinciam quae maximarum urbium exercitus et sustinuit et fregit, cum inter Carthaginem et Romam ingentis belli praemium iacuit; eqs.’

Were Lucilius really ambitioni alienus, all this section would seem rather superfluous.

Another significant item concerns the different aims of the Epistulae Morales and the Naturales Quaestiones. QNat. 4a praef. 3 begins thus: fac ergo, mi Lucili, quod facere consuesti. In addition to the fact that the exordium of Ep. 1 (ita fac, mi Lucili) cannot but occur to anyone who reads this passage, what is remarkable is that this is the only occurrence of fac in the Naturales Quaestiones: the use of an imperative—of fac, in particular—well fits the paraenetic aim, one of the cornerstones of Seneca's argumentation in the Epistulae Morales according to Cancik, but it would not fit the inquisitio causarum so well, a Senecan tag (Ep. 96.65) by which I. Hadot legitimately designates the Naturales Quaestiones. Footnote 33 By saying so, I by no means want to deny the moral as well as the scientific nature of this work.Footnote 34 Nevertheless, I want to stress that, according to the difference in aims outlined by Donini, the preface to QNat. 4a is inclined much more toward the inferior aim represented by a moral life—typical of most Epistulae Morales—than toward the higher goal of theoretical knowledge, which instead plays a central role in the Naturales Quaestiones. Footnote 35 After all, what Seneca claims immediately afterwards (a turba te quantum potes separa) seems to support this statement. Apart from another use of the imperative (separa), central is the presence of the topic of the separation from the crowd (turba, uulgus, populus), a recurring Epicurean theme in Seneca's work, in particular in the Epistulae Morales. Footnote 36 As Scarpat puts it: ‘La turba, quindi, rappresenta il polo opposto all'interiorità della persona; la turba è di ostacolo a quella vita di virtù che sola rende uomini; […] sono, insomma gli insipientes, gli stolti.’Footnote 37 As well as fugiendum ergo et in se recedendum est of § 20, it is quite evident that this expression first fits the paraenetic aim of the Epistulae Morales and only secondarily the scientific investigation of the Naturales Quaestiones.

IV. LUCILIUS AS EPICUREAN SYMPATHIZER

Having shown the connections between the Epistulae Morales and QNat. 4a praef., it is now time to turn to Lucilius’ initial attitude towards philosophy. Several scholars have already suggested that Lucilius was an Epicurean sympathizer.Footnote 38 In this section, I not only recall what in my view is the best evidence in favour of this theory, but also seek to make it stronger. Leaving aside more subjective and thus tenuous arguments,Footnote 39 proof of Lucius’ Epicureanism can be split into two parts: on the one hand we can infer an important clue from one passage of the Epistulae Morales, on the other from Lucilius’ own poetical fragments.

In Ep. 23.9, while addressing Lucilius, Seneca resorts to the expression Epicuri tui, thus explicitly admitting Lucilius’ Epicurean tendency.Footnote 40 Of course, given the extensive use of Epicurean citations in the first Epistulae Morales, Seneca too could be ironically defined as an Epicurean. However, there is no irony at all in Seneca's use of possessive adjectives or pronouns, let alone when it comes to discerning one philosophical tendency from another. On the contrary, a possessive adjective is what makes it always clear in the Epistulae Morales that Seneca is a Stoic. In fact, noster / nostri is exclusively used with reference to Stoic philosophers, with the exception of Virgil, whom every Roman could call noster, and Demetrius the Cynic, whom Seneca admired enough to consider him to be a real sage (sapiens).Footnote 41

Unfortunately, Lucilius’ poetical fragments are only three and are all to be found in Seneca's work, particularly in the Naturales Quaestiones and the Epistulae Morales. Footnote 42 However, one of these fragments may cast light on his philosophical attitude. In Ep. 24.21 Seneca, addressing Lucilius as usual, says:

haec cum descripsisses quo soles ore, semper quidem magnus, numquam tamen acrior quam ubi ueritati commodas uerba, dixisti, mors non una uenit, sed quae rapit ultima mors est.

Mazzoli compared this verse to Horace's mors ultima linea rerum est (Epist. 1.16.79), but this example does not fit in this context, because in the case of Lucilius ultima refers to mors, while in Horace ultima refers to linea. Footnote 43 Nevertheless, he was right in considering the expression ultima mors crucial. In Sat. 1.7.11–13 Horace writes: inter | Hectora Priamiden, animosum atque inter Achillem | ira fuit capitalis, ut ultima diuideret mors. Granted, it would be incautious to claim that ultima mors sounds typically Epicurean, but it is undeniable that this expression only met with Epicurean sympathizers’ approval, since it is found exclusively in Horace, who even called himself Epicuri de grege porcum. And if we do not restrict our research to ultima, the same concept is expressed by suprema mors, again in Horace, and extrema mors, used by another poet who in antiquity was usually regarded as an Epicurean sympathizer, Virgil.Footnote 44

These Lucilian verses quoted by Seneca are located in the first section of the Epistulae Morales, letters characterized by many citations taken from Epicurus. Wildberger has recently shown that in his earlier letters Seneca misrepresents and reinterprets some Epicurean ideas. In her view, this would prove that what she calls the ‘Letter Writer’ is not Seneca himself, because this sort of manipulation requires the kind of knowledge displayed by the ‘Letter Writer’ only in later letters.Footnote 45 However, another explanation seems by now to be possible: Seneca would have manipulated Epicurean quotations to convert Lucilius to Stoicism and would also have used Lucilius’ own verses to show him that (and how) they could go with Stoic doctrines.Footnote 46 This interpretation is more similar to Schottlaender's, who had already alluded to a sort of manipulation of Epicurean tenets made by Seneca, but he had also claimed that ‘Seneca will ihn [that is, Lucilius] zu dem besten Kern der von ihm selber anerkannten Lehre [that is, epicureischen Lehre] […] zurückführen, um ihn als hierdurch williger gewordenen Adepten in die umfassendere Wahrheit der stoischen Philosophie einzuweihen’.Footnote 47 After all, in the light of what was said above on the tight relationship between QNat. 4a praef. and the Epistulae Morales, Wildberger's theory of the Epistulae Morales as an epistolary Bildungsroman would seem difficult to accept, because it would somehow imply that the first chapter of this novel, that is to say, QNat. 4a praef., should be located in another work. On the contrary, if Lucilius was the real and first addressee of the letters, he could have received and read both the future QNat. 4a praef. and the other future Epistulae Morales.

V. CHRONOLOGY

In QNat. 6.1.1 we read:

Pompeios, celebrem Campaniae urbem, in quam ab altera parte Surrentinum Stabianumque litus, ab altera Herculanense conueniunt et mare ex aperto reductum amoeno sinu cingunt, consedisse terrae motu, uexatis quaecumque adiacebant regionibus, Lucili uirorum optime, audiuimus, eqs.

This very objective description, which precisely explains the geographical location of the city of Pompeii, is perfect for a general audience, which does not necessarily know where this city is, but it would be completely superfluous for Lucilius. In fact, as emerges from the Epistulae Morales, he knows Pompeii perfectly well, for it is probably his hometown: ecce Campania et maxime Neapolis ac Pompeiorum tuorum conspectus incredibile est quam recens desiderium tui fecerint: totus mihi in oculis es (Ep. 49.1) and post longum interuallum Pompeios tuos uidi (Ep. 70.1).Footnote 48 The preface to QNat. 4a and the very intimate relationship between Seneca and Lucilius, which emerges there, stresses even more the difference between what was originally thought to be read by Lucilius (the Epistulae Morales, including QNat. 4a praef.) and what was directly intended for a wider audience (QNat. 6).

Most of all, the comparison between the beginning of QNat. 6 and Epp. 49.1 and 70.1 is important for the chronology of the Epistulae Morales and the Naturales Quaestiones; therefore, before addressing the well-known issue concerning the dating of the Pompeian earthquake of QNat. 6, I should like to speculate further about it.

The different attitude toward the addressee in this book of the Naturales Quaestiones as opposed to the addressee of the Epistulae Morales is shown not only by the objectivity of the description of Pompeii but also by Seneca's dispassion in speaking about an earthquake which has destroyed his friend's city. Bearing in mind the tragic destiny of Pompeii, is it plausible that the earthquake had already taken place when Seneca wrote to Lucilius in both Letter 49 and Letter 70 that the view of this Campanian city reminded him of the happy moments spent together by the two friends? I believe that the absence of even the slightest hint of this catastrophe in these letters proves that they had been written before the Pompeian earthquake and, consequently, before QNat. 6.Footnote 49 This would also mean, since in QNat. 6.1.2 we read that Nonis Februariis hic fuit motus Regulo et Verginio consulibus, that they were written before 5 February a.d. 63.Footnote 50 Unfortunately, this explicit date—the only one in the Naturales Quaestiones—has raised several doubts for modern scholars, although—I agree with Wallace-Hadrill—this issue ‘scarcely merits the length of its bibliography’.Footnote 51 This uexatissima quaestio is due to a comparison with a passage of Tacitus (Ann. 15.22) in which the earthquake that devastated Pompeii and the Campanian region dates to a.d. 62. Without recalling the different opinions of the nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarship with regard to it, I should like to focus mainly on a textual aspect.Footnote 52 Those who are inclined to think that Regulo et Verginio consulibus is a gloss run up against a serious methodological problem: a possible textual error, in order to be proved that it actually is an error, should show the reason of its existence.Footnote 53 In this case, what could justify the presence of this gloss? We would be forced to postulate the existence of a scribe who simultaneously was brilliant enough to know that he could find the consular date of this earthquake in Tacitus’ Annales and so careless that he mixed up the consuls and the years (or could he resort to another source?).Footnote 54 Granted, supporters of the gloss-theory may invoke the different position of the phrase Regulo et Verginio consulibus in the two branches of the textual tradition of the Naturales Quaestiones as well as the addition of the cognomen Rufo in Z, which alone represents one of the two branches.Footnote 55 Yet, Hine himself admits that this change in position can also be explained in other ways, for example as a case of reinsertion in different places of original Senecan words which had been omitted by parablepsy.Footnote 56 But it is also the case that names of consuls and consular dates are easily subjected to interventions and corruptions, without this making glosses of them. In trying to counter the hypothesis that we face a case of parablepsy (which he himself puts forward), Hine involuntarily gives another very reasonable explanation for the word order in Z. He writes: ‘the word order given by Z is more natural, since it puts the consular date adjacent to the calendar date.’Footnote 57 This is true, but any scribe who was a little versed in Latin, having Hine's same feeling, could have decided to restore the more natural order. In other words, the word order of Z can easily be explained as a case of hypercorrection, that is, as a voluntary intervention of the scribe. As for the addition Rufo, compare, for example, Sall. Iug. 27: consules declarati P. Scipio Nasica, L. Bestia Calpurnius; Calpurnio Numidia, Scipioni Italia obuenit. Reynolds's OCT apparatus criticus immediately shows how praenomina, nomina and cognomina can equally be present or absent in manuscripts: L. bestia calpurnius C2HF : L. bestia C. B : L. bestia calpurnius L. bestiae A1C1 : L. bestia calpurnius L. bestia C. A2 : L. calpurnius bestia ND2 : L. bestia PD1. In the light of this, the standard criteria of textual criticism alone do not give enough evidence to invoke the presence of a gloss, and, were it not for Tacitus’ testimony, no one would question Seneca's reliability. The only possibility left is therefore to decide who merits more credit: Tacitus or Seneca? Personally, I would find absurd to ascribe such a confusion to a person who is talking about a contemporary event.

If there was a confusion or imprecision on the part of Seneca, it concerns the expression anno priore that we read in QNat. 6.1.13 with regard to the Achaean and Macedonian earthquake and its relationship with the comet of a.d. 60.Footnote 58 If this earthquake took place one year before the Campanian earthquake and immediately after the comet of a.d. 60, it is much more convenient to date the destruction of Pompeii to early a.d. 62. Despite the objections raised by Hine, if we did not approve of Wallace-Hadrill's reasoning (anno priore can also refer to the beginning of a.d. 62) or we did not think of Seneca's vagueness in making calculations, we would be compelled to more drastic interventions in the chronology of both the Naturales Quaestiones and the Epistulae Morales. Footnote 59 As an alternative, we should think that the letters, as we read them, are not in chronological order, but no one until now has called this fact into question thanks to the (albeit sporadic) chronological references that we find among them and the development of the figures of Lucilius and Seneca that we can perceive throughout the course of the correspondence.Footnote 60

On the contrary, if we accept for the books of the Naturales Quaestiones the order which is nowadays considered to be the most probable, if we consider genuine and correct the ablative absolute Regulo et Verginio consulibus of the manuscripts, and if we combine this clue with the comparisons between Ep. 34.2 and QNat. 4a praef. 20, and between Ep. 49.1–70.1 and QNat. 6.1.1–2, and with the only absolute date of the Epistulae Morales, namely the date of the destruction of Lugdunum, which plays a central role in Ep. 91 and dates to late summer or early autumn of a.d. 64, then we will obtain this cross-chronology:Footnote 61

  • QNat. 4a      before Ep. 34, or, more probably, before the first 34 letters

  • Ep. 18          December

  • Ep. 23          spring

  • Ep. 49          before 5 February 63

  • Ep. 67          late spring

  • Ep. 70          before 5 February 63

  • QNat. 6        after 5 February 63

  • Ep. 86          late June

  • Ep. 91          late summer / early autumn 64

  • Ep. 122        autumn

According to these data, we cannot but infringe a sort of taboo, the terminus post quem for the Epistulae Morales represented by the spring of a.d. 62, when, according to Tacitus (Ann. 14.52–6), Seneca, so to speak, retreated from political life. Nevertheless, as Hine puts it:

we should not be too fixated on Tacitus’ account of the interview between Seneca and Nero in a.d. 62 as a turning point, for the change in Seneca's influence and standing in the court, and in the balance he struck between court duties and philosophy, may have been more gradual.Footnote 62

After all, even in a passage usually considered decisive for dating the Epistulae Morales to this time, we do not read a clear hint of political life but rather of private business: secessi non tantum ab hominibus sed a rebus, et in primis a meis rebus: posterorum negotium ago (Ep. 8.2).

Based on these assumptions, we may date QNat. 4a to an undetermined period of a.d. 61 (in any case before December), Ep. 18 to December a.d. 61, Epp. 23–67 to the spring of a.d. 62, Epp. 68–70 to a period previous to 5 February a.d. 63 and QNat. 6—as already said—to a period subsequent to 5 February a.d. 63.Footnote 63 Assuming that Ep. 86 dates to the same summer of Ep. 91 (that is to say, the summer of a.d. 64), at most fifteen of the letters we have were written between 5 February a.d. 63 and the summer of a.d. 64.Footnote 64 If the dating of the earlier letters to some time of a.d. 61 even crosses the boundaries of the so-called long chronology (a.d. 62–4), to date Epp. 23 and 67 to the same spring is rather typical of the supporters of the short chronology (a.d. 63–4). Yet, the established opposition between long and short chronology, as well as resting on tenuous arguments, either takes for granted or ignores too many variables.Footnote 65 Some clarifications are in order. First, what I claim here is that the Epistulae ad Lucilium that we read are true letters which Seneca wrote to his friend between a.d. 61 and 64: nothing more and nothing less. Second, as my previous discussion of Ep. 121.18 should show, presumably Seneca did not include in the collection he decided to publish all the letters he wrote to Lucilius, and even taken alone this fact could give reason for the apparent unevenness in the rate of writing.Footnote 66 Third, even admitting that there are no missing letters within Books 1–20, we cannot know whether Seneca actually sent all the letters, whether he always waited for Lucilius’ reply before writing a new letter, whether the two met in person when there is no epistolary correspondence, and so on. Regardless of these speculations, the dating I propose—I hope—only rests on what we can read in the Epistulae Morales and in the Naturales Quaestiones.

Footnotes

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.

References

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.