343. Perhaps it most nearly corresponds to the term “hurricane.”

[387] a τύφω, incendo, ardeo. We have no distinct term in our language which corresponds to the account of the typhon; it may be considered as a combination of a whirlwind and a hurricane. [388] Plutarch, Sympos. Quæst. iii. 5, refers to the extraordinary power of vinegar in extinguishing fire, but he ascribes this effect, not to its coldness, but to the extreme tenuity of its parts. On this Alexandre remarks, “Melius factum negassent Plinius et Plutarchus, quam causam inanem rei absurdissimæ excogitarent.” Lemaire, i. 344. [389] The terms here employed are respectively “turbines,” “presteres,” and “vortices.” [390] πρηστὴρ, a πρήθω, incendo. Seneca calls it “igneus turbo;” Nat. Quæst. v. 13. p. 762. See also Lucretius, vi. 423. [391] Plutarch. [392] A water-spout. We have a description of this phænomenon in Lucretius, vi. 425 _et seq._ [393] “fulmen.” [394] This has been pointed out by Alexandre, Lemaire, i. 346, as one of the statements made by our author, which, in consequence of his following the Greek writers, applies rather to their climate than to that of Italy. The reader may form a judgement of the correctness of this remark by comparing the account given by Aristotle and by Seneca; the former in Meteor. iii. 1. p. 573, 574, the latter in Nat. Quæst. ii. 32 _et seq._ [395] “fulgur.” The account of the different kinds of thunder seems to be principally taken from Aristotle; Meteor. iii. 1. Some of the phænomena mentioned below, which would naturally appear to the ancients the most remarkable, are easily explained by a reference to their electrical origin. [396] “quod clarum vocant.” [397] This account seems to be taken from Aristotle, Meteor. iii. 1. p. 574; see also Seneca, Nat. Quæst. ii. 31. p. 711. We have an account of the peculiar effects of thunder in Lucretius, vi. 227 _et seq._ [398] This effect may be easily explained by the agitation into which the female might have been thrown. The title of “princeps Romanarum,” which is applied to Marcia, has given rise to some discussion among the commentators, for which see the remarks of Hardouin and Alexandre, in Lemaire, i. 348. [399] Sometimes a partial thunder-cloud is formed, while the atmosphere generally is perfectly clear, or, as Hardouin suggests, the effect might have been produced by a volcanic eruption. See Lemaire, i. 348. [400] Seneca gives us an account of the opinions of the Tuscans; Nat. Quæst. ii. 32; and Cicero refers to the “libri fulgurales” of the Etrurians; De Divin. i. 72. [401] According to Hardouin, “Summanus est Deus summus Manium, idem Orcus et Pluto dictus.” Lemaire, i. 349; he is again referred to by our author, xxix. 14; Ovid also mentions him, Fast. vi. 731, with the remark, “quisquis is est.” [402] The city of Bolsena is supposed to occupy the site of the ancient Volsinium. From the nature of the district in which it is situate, it is perhaps more probable, that the event alluded to in the test was produced by a volcanic eruption, attended by lightning, than by a simple thunder-storm. [403] “Vocant et familiaria ... quæ prima fiunt familiam suam cuique indepto.” This remark is explained by the following passage from Seneca; Nat. Quæst. ii. 47. “Hæc sunt fulmina, quæ primo accepto patrimonio, in novo hominis aut urbis statu fiunt.” This opinion, as well as most of those of our author, respecting the auguries to be formed from thunder, is combated by Seneca; _ubi supra_, § 48. [404] This opinion is also referred to by Seneca in the following passage; “privata autem fulmina negant ultra decimum annum, publica ultra trigesimum posse deferri;” _ubi supra_. [405] “in deductione oppidorum;” according to Hardouin, Lemaire, i. 350, “quum in oppida coloniæ deducuntur.” [406] The following conjecture is not without a degree of probability; “Ex hoc multisque aliis auctorum locis, plerique conjiciunt Etruscis auguribus haud ignotam fuisse vim electricam, licet eorum arcana nunquam divulgata sint.” Alexandre in Lemaire, i. 350. [407] Alexandre remarks in this place, “An morbus aliquis fuit, qui primum in agros debacchatus, jam urbi minabatur, forsitan ab aëris siccitate natus, quem advenientes cum procella imbres discusserunt?” Lemaire, i. 350. [408] For a notice of Piso, see Lemaire, i. 208. [409] We have an account of the death of Tullus Hostilius in Livy, i. 31. [410] “ab eliciendo, seu quod precationibus cœlo evocaretur, id nomen traxit.” This is confirmed by the following lines from Ovid, Fast. iii. 327, 328:— “Eliciunt cœlo te, Jupiter: unde minores Nunc quoque te celebrant, Eliciumque vocant.” [411] “beneficiis abrogare vires.” [412] “ictum autem et sonitum congruere, ita modulante natura.” This remark is not only incorrect, but appears to be at variance both with what precedes and what follows. [413] The following remark of Seneca may be referred to, both as illustrating our author and as showing how much more correct the opinions of Seneca were than his own, on many points of natural philosophy; “... necesse est, ut impetus fulminis et præmittat spiritus, et agat ante se, et a tergo trahat ventum....;” Nat. Quæst. lib. ii. § 20. p. 706. [414] “quoniam læva parte mundi ortus est.” On this passage Hardouin remarks; “a Deorum sede, quum in meridiem spectes, ad sinistram sunt partes mundi exorientes;” Lemaire, i. 353. Poinsinet enters into a long detail respecting opinions of the ancients on this point and the circumstances which induced them to form their opinions; i. 34 _et seq._ [415] See Cicero de Divin. ii. 42. [416] “Junonis quippe templum fulmine violatum ostendit non a Jove, non a Deis mitti fulmina.” Alexandre in Lemaire, i. 354. The consulate of Scaurus was in the year of Rome 638. Lucan, i. 155, and Horace, Od. i.