Would someone be so kind as to parse and translate "quae nunc alternis eunt redeuntque opportunis libramentis mundum ex aequo temperantia"?22. “Agedum,” inquit, “si possunt, resistant.” Hoc dicis: “Omnia ista ingentibus intervallis diducta et in custodiam universi disposita stationes suas deserant; subita confusione rerum sidera sideribus incurrant, et rupta rerum concordia in ruinam divina labantur, contextusque velocitatis citatissimae in tot saecula promissas vices in medio itinere destituat, et, quae nunc alternis eunt redeuntque opportunis libramentis mundum ex aequo temperantia, repentino concrementur incendio, et ex tanta varietate solvantur atque eant in unum omnia; ignis cuncta possideat, quem deinde pigra nox occupet, et profunda vorago tot deos sorbeat.” Est tanti, ut tu coarguaris, ista concidere? Prosunt tibi etiam invito euntque ista tua causa, etiam si maior illis alia ac prior causa est.
Sen. Ben. 6, 22.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:10 pm
Sen. Ben. 6, 22.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2504
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm
Re: Sen. Ben. 6, 22.
Very crudely: ". . . and let those things that now go and return in alternation, regulating the world evenly with convenient/opportune balancings, be consumed by a sudden conflagration . . ."
Isn't this just a relative clause with an indefinite neuter plural antecedent? His conception of physics and astronomy is a little hazy, of course. Basically he thinks the universe is governed by a mechanism involving balance and regular alternations. But I wouldn't press him too hard on exactly what is going on or what "those things" are.
temperantia is a participle agreeing with the neuter plural subject.
alternis: alternis vicibus; see Lewis and Short, alternus.
ex aequo: equally, evenly.
libramentis: libramentum is a weight for balancing in a scale, and these are opportuna because under current conditions the universe is in balance.
Does this help?
Isn't this just a relative clause with an indefinite neuter plural antecedent? His conception of physics and astronomy is a little hazy, of course. Basically he thinks the universe is governed by a mechanism involving balance and regular alternations. But I wouldn't press him too hard on exactly what is going on or what "those things" are.
temperantia is a participle agreeing with the neuter plural subject.
alternis: alternis vicibus; see Lewis and Short, alternus.
ex aequo: equally, evenly.
libramentis: libramentum is a weight for balancing in a scale, and these are opportuna because under current conditions the universe is in balance.
Does this help?
Bill Walderman
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:10 pm
Re: Sen. Ben. 6, 22.
Yes, very much, thanks for the help.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 4791
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: Sen. Ben. 6, 22.
Just how “hazy” is this conception of the cosmos? So far as I can tell—admittedly not very far—it looks to be in full accordance with the standard model of the universe that the Stoics had worked out quite thoroughly. “Those things” are surely the heavenly bodies, τα κατα τον ουρανον (sun & moon preeminently, also the constellations and the planets), with their respective revolutions around the earth, all held together as a system in perfect (but impermanent) balance; leading in time to the conflagration, when the cycle had to begin all over again.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:10 pm
Re: Sen. Ben. 6, 22.
Quandoquidem sidera interdum dei a Seneca habentur, quomodo fieri potest ut ocius citius in conflagratione concrementur, cum immortales sint?
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 4791
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am
Re: Sen. Ben. 6, 22.
Sorry, I don’t have time or competence to explain this properly. εκπυρωσις is the word, and Zeno the main man (and cf. Chrysippus in Cic.DND).
But in brief: Seneca’s interlocutor has postulated a situation which acc. to Stoic doctrine is impossible, as being contrary to the natural-divine order of things. It would precipitate the conflagration that is to consume the universe, in which God (stars and all) is immanent.
But in brief: Seneca’s interlocutor has postulated a situation which acc. to Stoic doctrine is impossible, as being contrary to the natural-divine order of things. It would precipitate the conflagration that is to consume the universe, in which God (stars and all) is immanent.