The Manuscript Tradition of Seneca's Natural Questions

Abstract

A. The Problem:Since A. Gercke's fundamental work, there has been no complete reappraisal of the manuscript tradition of the Natural Questions, yet a reappraisal is long overdue. Gercke divided the manuscripts into two branches, Δ and Φ but this division has been seriously undermined from two quarters. First, H. W. Garrod questioned the status which Gercke assigned to Δ, arguing, quite rightly, that in every case where Δ has the truth against Φ, Δ's reading can reasonably be attributed to conjecture, which is known to be rife in Δ Certainly nothing is proved about Δ's integrity by the passages which Gercke adduced, such as the following (Δ's reading first):3

Remarks on the Philosophical Reflection of Fate in the Writings of Seneca

“…18 16 For a good overview of all central introductory questions of the Naturales quaestiones, see Schönberger, Schönberger 1990, 13-45, with 28-32 for a breakdown of the contents and 40-45 for a selected bibliography until 1989. Hine 1980, andHine 1996b, provide a new foundation for textual criticism; cf. also his commentary on book 2, which is very rich in material (Hine 1981 This topic unquestionably holds great attraction for the Stoic because it is difficult to find any rational explanation for the occurrence of lightning, because the apparently arbitrary phenomenon of lightning strikes raises the issue of contingency, and because lightning was traditionally seen as a spontaneous expression of divine will and thus played an important role as prodigy in Roman divination.…”

Jean Pena (1528‐58) and Stoic Physics in the Sixteenth Century

“…Recent editions of these works are Rackham (1933), Corcoran (1971) and Todd (1976). On the availability of these works see, respectively, Rackham (1933) xviii-xix; Hine( 1980) 2 17, whoshows that Seneca had beenavailable from the early twelfth century; and Siraisi (1984), whodocuments citations to Alexander of Aphrodisias throughout our period . Williams (1974).…”