Without prejudice. All Rights Reserved. Tree of Life©
Did Seneca Claim that a Comet During
Nero’s Reign was Observed for “Six Months” or is this a Case of
Misunderstanding Seneca’s Words?
Abstract:
In one of the extant
translations of Seneca’s book Quaestiones Naturales,
Liber VII DE COMETIS, the words “six months” are found six times. It is
commonly believed that those words indicate the duration of visibility of a
comet in Nero’s time.
Because comets are
rarely visible from our planet for six months at a time, and because, according
to the within chronology study, the extant Far Eastern records gives no
indication that any comet was being observed for six months during the years of
Nero’s reign (39-52 CE,)
I find it important to carefully consider the real meaning of the Latin words
written by Seneca. [Conventional chronologists gives Nero’s reign as 55-69
A.D.]
The following are the
duration of visibility recorded for each of the comets reported by various Far
Eastern sources for the years 39 through 60 CE (From an excerpt out of Volume 1
of Gary W. Kronk’s Cometography series:)
39 CE: 49
days
46 CE: 20
days
54 CE: 31
days
55 CE: 113
days
59
CE: 29 days
60 CE:
135 days
Considering that
people in Rome commonly use inclusive time reckoning, four full months are
required at a minimum for a “six months” long Roman time period. This amounts
to a minimum of 120 days. Thus, if the Latin words of Seneca, translated “six
months,” are correctly translated and correctly understood, then Seneca’s words
could be construed as evidence that the then most recent comet was observed in
60 CE and thus also that both Seneca and Nero were still alive in 60 CE, could
it not? Is this possible? Are all the findings of the within chronology study
being overthrown by the words of Seneca?
After carefully
reviewing each of the six instances of “six months” in Seneca’s book
I find that the “six months,” when and if it is correctly so translated, does not
refer to the duration of visibility of the one and only comet observed during
Nero’s de facto reign. Instead I find
that Seneca himself uses words to the effect that it is asserted that in times
past comets had been observed for that long a time period, and that Seneca, in
his discussion re the nature and life of comets generally, is merely comparing
Nero’s comet, the most recently observed comet at the time, to those comets of
old that had been observed for as long as “six months” at a time.
Interestingly too, I find that the sixth instance of the words “six
months” in the translation of Seneca’s book has no corresponding plural in the
Latin text, but is written in the singular, i.e. as in “month six,”
accordingly, perhaps the following might be a better translation?:
“But it is a falsehood to assert that they [the comets]
move more slowly [than the planets and/or the stars:] For this last comet
traversed within the sixth month half the span of heaven; the previous one
withdrew from sight in less than a few months.”
However, if this last suggestion of mine is a correct translation, an
apparent conflict is brought to the surface between the Korean date and that of
Seneca. This then needs to be resolved, e.g.: Is the Korean text using a
different calendar than previously assumed? Is the Korean 46/47 CE comet
identical to the one here referenced by Seneca?
The six passages in Seneca’s book Quaestiones
Naturales, Liber VII DE COMETIS using words
translated “six months:”
Item 1:
“X. The slowness and
steadiness of the Comet could not be accounted for on this assumption, nor its
general behaviour and shape 281
“XI. We must look for some
other explanation. Now Comets, it must be premised, appear in all quarters of
the sky. Whatever the divisions of them made by the Greeks, they are all of one
origin. Some of the ancients thought they were due to the union of two planets
283
“XII. Again the facts do
not square. Comets and planets appear simultaneously. A conjunction is momentary, a Comet lasts six months sometimes. The planets do not pass much beyond the ecliptic, but
Comets appear in every quarter of the sky. And there are other objections 284
“XIII. Artemidorus thinks
the firmament is solid and has openings for stars. Comets are casual planets,
or formed by conjunctions of them. His account is a tissue of barefaced
falsehoods”
Comment: I
find no Latin text corresponding to the above English translation! Accordingly this
must be an editor’s Contents addition, must it not?
Item 2:
“So, if
all the stars are earthy bodies, comets must share the same lot. But if the
stars are pure fire and nothing else, remaining for six
months at a time unbroken by the rapid whirl of the universe,
then comets,
too, may consist of some rarefied material, which is not broken up by the
constant revolution of the sky.”
“[2,1] Ad haec
inuestiganda proderit quaerere num cometae condicionis sint cuius
superiora. Videntur enim cura illis quaedam habere communia: ortus et occasus,
ipsam quoque, quam uis spargatur et longius exeat, faciem (aeque enim ignei
splendidique sunt).
“[2,2] Itaque si
omnia terrena sidera sunt, his quoque eadem sors erit; si uero nihil aliud sunt
quam purus ignis manensque[1] mensibus[2]
senis[3] nec[4]
illos[5]
conuersio mundi soluit et uelocitas, illa quoque possunt et tenui constare
materia nec ob hoc discuti assiduo caeli circumactu.”
(Senecae, L.
Annaei, Quaestiones Naturales, Liber VII - De Cometis)
Comment: If
indeed the Latin words “mensibus senis” are referencing the ages of the fixed
stars - and I see no evidence that they are not - I see no need for the
translation “six months” since obviously Seneca and his time were well aware of
the great age associated with most stars. It would certainly make much more
sense to translate those Latin words in terms more like “months and ages” or
“months and many, many, years,” i.e. in terms of “old, aged, advanced in
years,”[6]
would it not?
Item 3:
"what is to be said of the comets
that have continued in sight for six months?"
[10,1] Praeterea
manere in alto non potest ignis turbine illatus, nisi ipse quoque permanet
turbo. Quid porro tam incredibile est quam in turbine longior mora, utique ubi
motus motu contrario uincitur? (Habet enim suam locus ille uertiginem, quae
rapit caelum "sideraque alta trahit celerique uolumine torquet"). Et ut des ei aliquam
aduocationem, quod fieri nullo modo potest, quid[7] de[8] his[9] cometis[10] dicetur[11] qui[12] senis[13] mensibus[14] apparuerunt[15]?
(Senecae, L.
Annaei, Quaestiones Naturales, Liber VII - De Cometis)
Comment: The word “cometis” in the Latin text is in the plural
format. Also this passage is giving no reference to any particular time period
or to any specified comet. It is only a general reference. Furthermore, I do
not see that the Latin word “senis” is necessarily referencing the number six,
but is more likely referencing something “old, aged, advanced in years.”
Indeed, I don’t see that this sentence of Seneca’s couldn’t be accurately
construed to mean that comets, like stars, are objects lasting for long times,
i.e. old objects, advanced in years. Perhaps the above sentence could be
translated something like this?:
“How
[16], in this[17] context[18], are we to account for comets[19] that
are asserted[20] by some[21] to have been appearing[22] for many months[23] and years[24]?”
Clearly there is
nothing in this particular passage indicating that any of the “comets” here
referenced was even observed by Seneca himself or even of his contemporaries.
Item 4:
OUR first answer to
this theory is that the number 1 of moving stars (planets) is fixed. It is
quite usual for them and comets to appear at the same time; whence it is
manifest that the comet is not due to the conjunction of planets, but is a
distinctive independent star. Besides, it is a matter of frequent occurrence
for a star to come under the orbit of a more elevated star. Saturn, for
example, is sometimes above Jupiter; Mars looks down in a straight line on
Venus or Mercury. But yet no comet is formed from this movement whereby the one
planet approaches the other. Were it otherwise, there would be a comet every
year, for every year there are planets in the same constellation. Again, if the
approach of star to star produced a comet, the latter would cease to be in a
moment. The transit of stars takes place with the utmost rapidity, thence all
eclipse of heavenly bodies is of brief duration; by the same motion they are as
swiftly separated as they were brought together. The sun and the moon, as we see,
part company within a brief space after the eclipse has begun. How much swifter
must be the separation of stars, which are so much smaller? Yet comets
last for six months at a time, which
would not…
…happen if they sprang from
the union of two stars. The stars cannot stick to one another for any long
time, and the law of their swift motion must ever drive them asunder. Besides,
those stars appear to us to be close to one another, but in reality are
separated by immense distances. How, then, could the one star transmit fire to
the other so that the two should seem in union, when they are thus parted by an
immense tract?
[12,4] Si cometen
faceret stella stellae superueniens, momento esse desineret. Summa[25] enim[26] uelocitas transeuntium est, ideoque omnis defectio
siderum breuis est, quia cito illa idem cursus qui admouerat abstrahit; uidemus
solem et lunam intra exiguum tempus, cum obscurari coeperunt, liberari: quanto
celerior debet fieri in stellis digressio tanto minoribus? Atqui[27] cometae[28]
senis[29] mensibus[30] manent[31], quod non accideret, si duarum stellarum conuentu
gignerentur: illae enim diu cohaerere non possunt et necesse est illas lex
celeritatis suae separet.
(Senecae, L.
Annaei, Quaestiones Naturales, Liber VII - De Cometis)
Comment: Again the same Latin words, as in items #3 and #4
above, are being used. Again the same comments as under item #3 above may be
made. Perhaps this particular Latin sentence is, or could be, better translated
in terms similar to this:
“Yet comets last for many
months and years, which would not be if they sprang from the union of
two stars.”
Item 5:
[21,2:] “…it does not
advance in its orbit as a star, but feeds as a fire.
[21,3:] “Why, then, does it
appear for a long period, and why is it not quickly extinguished? For the
recent one which we saw during this joyous reign of Nero displayed itself to
view for six months, revolving in the opposite
direction to the former one in Claudius' time. That one rising from the north
up toward the zenith made for the east, always growing dimmer. This one began
in the same quarter, but making toward the west, turned finally toward the
south, where it withdrew from view.
[21,4:] “No doubt the
former found moister elements, more suitable for its fire, and pursued them;
the latter in turn chose a richer and more substantial district. So they
descend toward the direction in which they are invited by their material, and
not by a definite path, which in the two we have seen was different, since the
one moved off toward the right and the other toward the left. Now all stars1
have their orbit in one direction, namely, contrary to the motion of the
universe. The latter moves from east to west, the stars go from west to east.
For this reason they have a double motion,--one, their own proper motion; the
other, which carries them round along with the heavens.”
[21,3] Quare ergo per
longum tempus apparet et non cito extinguitur? Sex[32] enim[33] mensibus[34] hic[35] quem[36] nos[37] Neronis[38] principatu[39] laetissimo[40] uidimus[41] spectandum[42] se[43] praebuit[44], in[45] diuersum[46] illi[47] Claudiano[48] circumactus[49]: ille[50] enim[51] a[52]
septentrione[53] in[54] uerticem[55] surgens[56] orientem[57] petiit[58] semper[59]
obscurior[60], hic[61] ab[62] eadem[63] parte[64] coepit[65] sed[66] in[67] occidentem[68] tendens[69] ad[70] meridiem[71] flexit[72] et[73] ibi[74] se[75] subduxit[76] oculis[77].
(Senecae, L.
Annaei, Quaestiones Naturales, Liber VII - De Cometis)
Comment: In the context of items #1 through #4 above it is well
to consider that the Latin words here used are not the same as before
translated “six months.” Yet the subject matter of the life of comets is still
the matter being considered. This time
however, it is in comparison with the most recent comet having been observed,
the comet “which we saw during this joyous reign of Nero.” Yet, can we be
certain that the Latin words “Sex[78] enim[79] mensibus[80]... uidimus[81]” are referencing the duration of the comet’s
visibility? Is it not rather possible that Seneca is here giving reference to
the point in time when the last comet was seen, e.g. “six months ago” or
perhaps this passage could be translated something in terms of these words?:
“In
fact, we saw, six times [i.e. “for six consequtive nights,” or, alternatively,
“six months ago”] during these recent months of the joyous reign of Nero…”
Item 6:
[29,1:] “BOTH statements
are false. Let me take them in their order. Well, it is asserted, is it, that
all bodies are heavy that move more slowly? What! is the planet Saturn, which
accomplishes its circuit most slowly of all the planets, heavy? It has, in
fact, a proof of lightness in being higher than all the rest.
[29,2:] “But, you say, it
takes a wider sweep, and does not go more slowly than the others, but only a
longer distance. Let me suggest that I can make the same statement of the
comets; even if their course is more sluggish, they have farther to go. But
it is a falsehood to assert that they move more slowly. For this
last comet traversed within
six months half the span of heaven; the previous one withdrew from sight
in a shorter period.“
“[29,1] Tarditas,
inquit, illorum argumentum est grauiores esse multumque in se habere terreni.
Ipse praeterea cursus: fere enim compelluntur in cardines. Utrumque falsum est.
De priore dicam prius: Omnia quae tardius feruntur grauia sunt. Quid ergo? Stella
Saturni, quae ex omnibus iter suum lentissime efficit, grauis est? Atqui
leuitatis argumentum habet quod supra ceteras est.
“[29,2] Sed maiore, inquis, ambitu circuit nec tardius it quam ceterae sed
longius. Succurrat tibi idem me de cometis
posse dicere, etiamsi segnior illis cursus sit. Sed[82] mendacium[83] est[84] ire[85] eos[86] tardius[87]: nam[88] intra[89] sextum[90] mensem[91] dimidiam[92] partem[93] caeli[94] transcurrit[95] hic[96] proximus[97], prior[98] intra[99] pauciores[100] menses[101] recepit[102] se[103].”
(Senecae, L.
Annaei, Quaestiones Naturales, Liber VII - De Cometis)
Comment: Had the last words, “the previous one withdrew from
sight in a shorter period,” not been
part of the last sentence above, I might find it possible to consider the words
“within six months” a reference to the space of time between the cometary event
and the point in time when Seneca wrote these words. Considering the quoted
words and the inherent comparison of time, “…shorter period,” it is
understandable that some find support, within this sentence, for “this last
comet” having been observed over a time span of six months. If “this last
comet” is indeed the 46/47 CE comet, then this comet would accordingly have
been observed by Seneca and his sources at Rome from December 46 CE through the
beginning of May 47 CE. Considering the below referenced Korean text, stating
visibility of the 46/47 CE comet “for 20 days,” Seneca’s “six months” are a
matter of concern and is the chief basis for the within considerations re
Seneca’s “six months” vs. the duration of visibility of Nero’s comet.
Gary W.
Kronk:
“46 - The Chronicle of Koguryo contained
in the Korean text Samguk Sagi (1145) is the only source of information
on this object. It says a "sparkling star"
appeared sometime during the month of 46 December 17 and 47 January 15. The
object was in the south and remained visible for
20 days. Ho Peng Yoke (1962) noted that ancient Korean records
were frequently inaccurate.
“Full moon: December 31
“Sources: Samguk Sagi (1145), p. 149; Ho Peng Yoke
(1962), p. 149; I. Hasegawa (1980), p. 66.” (Excerpt from volume 1 of Gary W. Kronk’s
Cometography series.)
However, why the assumption that “the previous one” is
being compared with “this last comet” and not with an unspecified prior comet
that did in fact last “six months?” This entire “Book VII” of Seneca is dealing with
the nature and life of comets and it is clear that Seneca is giving reference
to some unspecified comets of the past that reportedly had been observed for
extended periods of time, whether for “six months” or for “months and many,
many, years” (cf. item #3 above!)
Notice the sentence
preceding the one we have been focusing upon: “But
it is a falsehood to assert that they move more slowly.” Look closely at
the corresponding Latin text! The translator has ignored a colon, hasn’t he?
Seneca’s focus is not the duration of visibility of the comet here, is he? He
is focusing upon the speed of the comet as it moves across the sky, isn’t he?
In that setting it makes sense to perceive Seneca as making a comparison
between each of the last two comets, Nero’s and Claudius’ comets, one the one
hand, and on the other hand, a prior comet of “six months” etc. duration, does
it not?
Accordingly, I
find good reason for rejecting even this last instance of the words “six
months” within Seneca’s book as being necessarily a reference to either Nero’s
comet or that of Claudius.
Additionally,
notice that Seneca is using a Latin word for “months” which in the Latin
original is written in the singular, not the plural, format! How then can this refer
to a duration of “six months?” Is it not rather a reference to an event that
occurred within “the sixth month?”
May I suggest that
these sentences of Seneca’s be more correctly translated in terms such as
these:
“But it is a falsehood to assert that they [the comets]
move more slowly [than the planets and/or the stars:] For this last comet
traversed within the sixth month half the span of heaven; the previous one
withdrew from sight in less than a few months.”
Are the dates of the Korean report being
misunderstood?
But this creates an
apparent conflict with the Korean report (above quoted,) which has been
understood as stating that this comet was seen in the lunar month between
Consider the following words quoted from Gary W. Kronk
re the differences between Chinese dating and Korean dating:
“The astronomical
chapter of the Chinese text Hou
Han shu (445) said a "broom star" appeared on 60 August 9… the actual date of this
comet sighting may have been August 8.8 UT…
The Hou Han shu
added... “After 135 days it went out of sight." This period of visibility,
when added to the date of discovery, implies a final observation of December 21…
The Chronicle of
Silla, contained in the Korean text Samguk
Sagi (1145), reported that a
"sparkling star" appeared sometime within the month of 59 June 30 to
July 28. It was seen at T'ien–Chhuan. Ho Peng Yoke (1962) suggested this comet was the same as that seen in
China in 60, and added that Korean accounts were inaccurate during this
period.”
The above quote, though
referencing a comet observed after the deaths of Seneca and Nero, indicates
that we may have a problem in correctly understanding Chinese and/or Korean
time references.
I find reason here for
reconsidering the Korean dates as given for Nero’s comet. If the Korean
calendar actually used can be shown to agree, then Nero’s comet was not seen in
December 46 and/or January 47 CE, but in some other month, perhaps “in the
sixth month” as indicated by Seneca’s words “intra[104]
sextum[105] mensem[106].”
But this calls for
reconsidering also Tacitus’ statement:
“47. At the close of the year
people talked much about prodigies, presaging impending evils. Never were
lightning flashes more frequent, and a comet too appeared, for which Nero always[107]
made propitiation with noble blood.” (Tacitus, Annals, Book 15:47.)
Fortunately I have already
found that this is yet another instance of mistranslating the Latin
original, which original is seen as being more in harmony with real events and
with the Latin language when translated as follows:
“47. At the close
of the year people talked
much about omens presaging impending evils: [They talked about] Powerful[108]
lightning flashes[109]
never[110], [111]
having been more frequent[112]
and a comet[113] constellation[114], in
conjunction[115] with Nero’s
continuous[116]
shedding of aristocratic blood [since the time of that most recent
comet not quite 2 years before.”] (My translation.)
It remains to determine the correct Korean dates in
terms of a well defined calendar understandable to us. Did Nero’s comet occur
in 46 or 47 CE? Can the Korean date be made to concur with Seneca’s record,
which apparently places Nero’s comet in the sixth month? And, if that month is
not June, is Seneca using a non-Roman calendar?
Comments and donations freely
accepted at:
Tree
of Life©
c/o
General Delivery
Nora
[near SE-713 01]
Sweden
Republic© in Adamah Republic©
eMail:
TreeOfLifeTime@gmail.com
Invitation to Tree of Life
Chronology Forums©:
You
are hereby warmly invited to join Tree of Life
Chronology Forums© where
the within historical paradigm and more is the focus of an ongoing dialogue.
Please
come to Tree of Life Chronology Forums© and share your valuable points of
view such that we may all grow in knowledge and wisdom!
The GateWays into Tree of Life
Chronology Forums©
Without prejudice. All Rights Reserved. Tree of Life©