it, and ordered him to be cruelly put to death. The captive, taking a concealed knife from his boot, rushed upon the sultan; the latter, confiding in his own strength and unerring archery, bade his guards leave to him the punishment of the rebel; the arrow of the unrivalled bowman for this once missed its aim, and Alp Arslan received a mortal wound. He died a few hours after, in the tenth year of his reign (A.D. 1073), confessing with his dying breath the presumption which had been the cause of his fate.

Malek Shah, surnamed Moezzeddin Abulfatah, son of Alp Arslan, succeeded his father in 1073, and in the beginning of his reign defeated his two uncles, who had rebelled against him; one of these he after wards poisoned in prison, as he found that his own troops were growing mutinous in the idea of making the captive their leader. In 1075 Aftis, one of the generals of Malek Shah, took Damascus, and subdued the greater part of Syria, but was unsuccessful in an attempt to possess himself of Egypt. Malek Shah himself reduced Mawarannahr (the country beyond the Jihun) in 1078, and two years afterwards made preparations to invade the dominions of Ibrahim, the ninth Gaznevide sultan. This intention however he was prevailed upon to relinquish, and he received in marriage the daughter of Ibrahim. In 1090 the successes of the Batanians, or Assassins, made Malek Shah send them an embassy, requiring ‹ bedience in a somewhat threatening tone; but the singular proof which the ambassador received of the devotion that these men bore their master (three of them having slain themselves successively at his command), induced the sultan to suspend his proceedings against them. Shortly after, the vizir Nizam-al-Mulk, who had been disgraced a little time before, was murdered by an emissary of this fraternity. Malek Shah died at Baghdad in 1092, leaving behind him the reputation of being the greatest of the Seljukian princes.

Barkiarok, the elder son of Malek Shah, was the virtual successor of his father, though the latter had left his kingdom to his younger son Mahmud, then only six years old, under the guardianship of his widow Turkhan Khatan. The queen-regent fixed herself in Ispahan, where she was besieged by Barkiarok; but fearing a revolt of the citizens, she consented to divide the government with her stepson, taking for Mahmud the province of Ispahan and its dependencies, while she left to Barkiarok the rest of his father's dominions. The death of the infant prince shortly after however devolved the separated province again upon Barkiarok. His next opponent was his uncle Tajaddowlet Tatash, governor of all Syria, who was defeated and slain in 1095; and this revolt was followed three years after by that of Mohammed, younger brother of Barkiarok, who, by the mutiny of the troops of the latter, gained possession of Irak without striking a blow. From this date till 1104 the brothers were engaged in perpetual skirmishes, which were ended by a treaty in the year last mentioned, giving to Mohammed Syria, Mesopotamia, Mousul, Azerbijan, Armenia, and Georgia, and leaving Barkiarok in possession of the rest. He died however in the year when this treaty was concluded, appointing as his successor his son Malek Shah. During this reign the Crusaders entered Syria. Mohammed, the brother of the late king, was too powerful to permit the succession of an infant prince; and on the death of his brother he marched to Baghdad, where he was invested with the sovereignty. He conquered part of India, and refused an immense ransom for an idol, which he ordered to be placed as the threshold of a magnificent college built at Ispahan, that the feet of the faithful might perpetually trample on it. He died in 1117, appointing his son Mahmud Abulcassem his

successor.

Sanjar however, brother of the late king, who had held the government of Khorassan under him and his predecessor during twenty years, took advantage of his power to claim the succession, leaving to Mahmud the province of Irak. In 1127 died Kothboddin, the Kharezm Shah, or king of Karazm. This dominion, originally dependent upon the office of chief cupbearer, to which the revenues of Kharezm were annexed, had grown into a virtual sovereignty, and though Kothboddin and his son Atsiz had actually performed alternately the office by which they held their land, the latter harassed the sultan Sanjar with perpetual hostilities, and is generally considered as the first actual sovereign of a dynasty which eventually overturned that of the Iranian Seljuks. In 1153, Sanjar, after gaining a signal victory over the Sultan of Gaur, was taken prisoner by the Turkmans, whom he had attempted to chastise for non-payment of their tribute, and detained by them for four years. He escaped by a stratagem, but died the year after his restoration to liberty, of grief, it is said, at the ravages committed by the Turkmans during his captivity. He died in 1157, after a reign of forty years. He was succeeded by Mahmud, the son of his sister, who governed for five years in Khorassan, after which he was defeated and deprived of his sight by a rebel, who shared with the sultan of Kharezm the province of Khorassan, and thus put an end to the Seljukian dominion there. Between Sanjar however and Mahmud, the eastern historians count three Seljukian sultansMahmud Abulcassem, already mentioned as sultan of Irak, and his two successors in that dignity, Togrul and

Massoud. The reign of these sultans, the last of whom died before the close of Sanjar's reign, are chiefly remarkable for their dissensions with the kalifs of Baghdad, and for the establishment of a new dynasty,

that of the Atabegs of Irak. With the death of Massoud, in 1152, ended the domination of the Seljuks in Irak. Of his successors, Malek Shah II., who is variously represented as the grandson or great-grandson of Malek Shah I.,

Mohammed II., brother of Malek Shah, and Suleyman Shah, son of Mohammed I., and Malek Arslan, his nephew, little is recorded but their mutual dissensions and alternate depositions one of the other. The lastnamed of these died in 1175, and was succeeded by

Togrul II., the last sultan of this dynasty, reigned eighteen years, perpetually insulted and harassed by the Atabegs of Baghdad, and was at last slain in a contest with them in 1193.

The Seljuks of Kerman, or Karamania, beginning their empire with this province, extended it afterwards to Fars, Mekran, part of Segestan and Zabulistan, and perhaps part of India. The first of this line was Kaderd, nephew of Togrul Beg, who appointed him governor of Kerman, in 1041. He was poisoned in 1072, by his nephew Malek Shah I., who had taken him prisoner in an attempt to invade his dominions. He left his dominions to his son,

Soltan Shah, who was permitted by the conqueror of his father to assume the government of them. He died in 1074, or, according to other authorities, in 1084. The remaining princes of this dynasty areTuran Shah, died in 1095.

Iran Shah, his son, slain by his subjects for his cruelty in 1100. Arslan Shah, nephew of the last mentioned, reigned in peace 42 years, leaving his crown in 1141 to his son Mohammed, who died in 1156.

Togrol Shah, son of Mohammed, died in 1167, leaving three sons, Arslan Shah,

Baharam Shah, and

Turan Shah, who reigned alternately as each could wrest the kingdom from the others, until Turan Shah left the kingdom to Mohammed Shah, from whom it was taken by Malek Dinar, who conquered Kerman in 1187, thus terminating this dynasty.

The Seljuks of Rum (a name somewhat loosely applied to the domi nions of the Greek emperors in Asia, but here including Asia Minor and part of the rest of what is now Turkey in Asia) take their origin from Kotolmish, nephew and general of Togrul Beg, who being sent by his uncle against the Greeks, and failing in his enterprise, rebelled from fear of his sovereign's displeasure. After long hostilities, which outlasted the life of Togrul Beg, his successor Alp Arslan concluded a treaty with Kotolmish, in which it was agreed that the latter and his heirs should hold all the territory he could take from the Greeks, and that the sultan should furnish him with assistance for that purpose. In consequence of this arrangement, Kotolmish and his sons gained possession of Persarmenia, Lycaonia, Cappadocia, and Bithynia; these conquests were left to

Suleyman, one of the five sons of Kotolmish, who is considered to have begun his reign as the first Seljuk sultan of Rum in 1087. There is however some discrepancy between Oriental and Greek historians as to the source of Suleyman's power, the latter deriving it from an independent grant made to him by Alp Arslan, and not from his father Kotolmish. Suleyman took Nice and Antioch, but was slain in 1085, under the walls of Aleppo, by the governor of Damascus, Tajoddowlat, having been engaged during the greater part of his reign in assisting one competitor for the Greek throne against another, and in taking advantage of their quarrels for his own aggrandisement. After an interregnum of nine years, he was succeeded by his son

Kilij Arslan, of whom little is recorded by the Oriental historians, and who is mentioned by the Greeks only in connection with their own history. He repaired Nice, and fixed his government there, but was driven from it by the Greeks and Norman crusaders. After a reign troubled by perpetual assaults of the two powers just mentioned, he was drowned in an action against the general of Mohammed, sultan of Irak, after taking possession of Mosul at the invitation of the inhabitants. The Greek writers introduce after him a sultan not mentioned by the Oriental historians, whom they call

Saysan, who, they say, after suffering several defeats from the Greeks, made with them a treaty greatly to the advantage of the latter, but was treacherously blinded and afterwards murdered, in 1116, by

Masoud, his brother, who reigned till 1152, when he was succeeded by his son

Kilij Arslan II., an active and prudent prince, who dispossessed his two brothers of their share of the kingdom left by his father, availed himself of the friendship or folly of the emperor Manuel to procure supplies of money for raising soldiers, and in a contest with Manuel, originating in the building of two forts by the latter, he defeated the Emperor in a sanguinary battle, and obtained as an article of peace the destruction of the forts. This treaty, being only partially fulfilled on the emperor's side, gave occasion to fresh hostilities, in the course of which Manuel died, and which ended in the aggrandisement of Kilij Arslan. In his old age, having divided his kingdom among his sons, he was treated by them with great unkindness; and Kothboddin, to whom Iconium had fallen, with the possession of which the succession to the empire was usually connected, imprisoned his father. The latter

however contrived to make his escape, and was reinstated in his kingdom by his son Kai Khosrou. In consequence of this, Kai Khosrou was invested with the government of Iconium, which had been taken by him from his brother; and he succeeded his father in the kingdom. At the death of the latter, in 1192,

Kai Khosrou, surnamed Gaiathoddin, obtained several successes in the beginning of his reign against the emperor Alexis; but in 1198 he was dispossessed by his brother

Rokneddin, who, taking advantage of the death of his brother Kothboddin, seized not only upon his dominions, but also on those of his other brothers. He died in 1203, leaving his son

Kilij Arslan III., a minor, from whom however the throne was wrested almost immediately on his accession by his uncle, the deposed sultan Kai Khosrou, who thus recovered his lost dignity. He reigned after this, says the Oriental history, with great power and dignity; he was afterwards concerned in the disputes of the pretenders to the Greek empire, and in one of these he perished in a personal encounter with Lascaris, one of the competitors. He left two sons, Azzoddin Kai Kaus, who died after a reign of a year, in 1219, and Alaoddin Kaikobad, who succeeded his brother. He is the Aladdin of the writers on the Crusades; and was one of the greatest princes of this dynasty. He extended the dominions of his family in the East, and governed with extraordinary prudence and firmness. He died in 1236. His son

Gaiathoddin Kai Khosrou II. was a voluptuous and uxorious prince, during whose reign the dominions of his house became tributary to the Mogols. He died in 1244. His son

Azzoddin succeeded him, and being required by Oktay, the khan of the Mogols, to come to do him homage, he sent his brother Roknoddin in his stead. The result of this was, that when a Tartar lieutenant or viceroy was sent into Rum, it was with the commission to put Roknoddin in the place of his brother. A division was afterwards effected, Azzoddin receiving the Western and Roknoddin the Eastern provinces. Azzoddin however was again deposed, and Roknoddin, whom he had attempted to murder, was placed in his room by the Tartars. On this occasion Azzoddin fled to the Greek emperor (1261), who for some time amused him with promises; but at length Azzoddin, perceiving or fearing the emperor's intention to make him prisoner, intrigued to bring the Tartars upon the emperor, and thus escaped. After this his name does not appear again in history. Of the remaining sultans,

Kai Khosrou III., son of Roknoddin, slain in 1283; Gaiathoddin Massoud II., son of Azzoddin Kai Kaus, who died in 1288; and

Kai Kobad, the nephew of Massoud, who was put to death in 1300, little is on record beyond the dates annexed to their names. From the time of Gaiathoddin Kai Khosrou, the Seljuk sultans had been in fact mere pageants under the actual government of the Mogols, who summoned them to do the most servile homage, deposed and set them up, and even put them to death at their pleasure. Out of the wrecks of this empire arose that of the Othmans, or Turks, founded by Othman, a Seljuk captain.

SELKIRK, ALEXANDER, was born at Largo, on the coast of Fife, in 1676, and bred to the sea. Having engaged in the half-piratical half-exploring voyages in the American seas, into which the spirit of adventure then led so many of our countrymen, he quarrelled with his captain, one Straddling, by whom he was set on shore on the uninhabited island of Juan Fernandez, with a few books, his nautical instruments, a knife, boiler, axe, gun, powder and ball, for his whole equipment, in September 1704. After four years and four months' residence, he was taken off by two English vessels, commanded by Captain Woods Rogers, in February 1709, in the account of whose voyage we find the following passage." At first the terror and loneliness of the place sunk deeply on his spirits; but in time he became inured to it, and got the better of his melancholy. He had erected two huts, one of which served him for a kitchen, the other for a dining-room and bed chamber; they were made of pimento wood, which supplied him also with fire and candle, burning very clear, and yielding a most refreshing fragrant smell; the roof was of long grass, and his wainscoting the skins of goats, near five hundred whereof he had killed during his residence here, and caught above five hundred more, which he marked on the ears, and then set at liberty. When his ammunition was exhausted, he caught them by running; and so practised was he in that exercise, that the swiftest goat on the island was scarcely a match for him. On his being first abandoned here, he relished his food, which was boiled goat's flesh and crawfish, but indifferently, for want of salt; however, in time he got the better of the nicety of his palate, and was well enough pleased with the seasoning of the pimento fruit. When his clothes were worn out, he made bimself a covering of goat-skin, joined together with thongs which he had cut with his knife, and which he run through holes made with a nail instead of a needle: he had a piece of linen by him, of which he had made a sort of shirt, and this was sewn in the same manner. He had no shoes left in a month's time: his feet, having been so long bare, were now become quite callous; and he was some time on board before he could wear a shoe. The rats at first plagued him very much, growing so bold as to gnaw his feet and clothes while he slept: however, he soon taught them to keep at greater distance, with the

assistance of some cats that had been left ashore by the ships; of these and a few kids he made pets, and used to divert himself by teaching them a thousand tricks." He had one narrow escape, having fallen over a precipice while in the act of catching a goat: on recovering his senses, he found the animal dead under him. Thirty years after, the first goat shot by Anson's crew was found to be marked as above described. After his knife was worn out, he managed to forge others from old iron hoops. He had some difficulty in returning to the use of speech, and in reconciling himself to the ship's provisions and to spirits. Rogers made him his mate, and he returned to England in 1711. It is said that he gave his papers to Defoe, who stole from them the story of Robinson Crusoe;' but the above extract, which on that account we have given at full length, shows that whatever communications may have passed between Defoe and Selkirk, the former can have borrowed little beyond the mere idea of a man being left alone on a desert isle, there being scarcely anything common to the adventures of the real and the fictitious solitary. (Voyage of Capt. Rogers, in Collect. of Voyages, 12mo, Lond., 1756; Chalmers, Biog.)

*SELLON, PRISCILLA LYDIA, a daughter of Captain W. E. Sellon, R.N., was born about the year 1820. She was led by the public appeals of the Bishop of Exeter to devote herself, in cooperation with the clergy of Devonport, to the visiting of the sick and poor of that place and of Plymouth, and especially in the endeavour to seek out and bring under educational influence the wretched and neglected children of those towns. Her name however first attracted public attention in 1849, when, in conjunction with the Rev. Dr. Pusey of Oxford [PUSEY, E. B.], she commenced the experiment of estab lishing an order of religious ladies at Devonport as a Protestant sisterhood, in imitation or emulation of the religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church. Their chief duties were to nurse the sick, and to carry on schools for the education of poor children in the three towns of Plymouth, Stonehouse, and Devonport. The institution at first was placed under the superintendence and control of the Bishop of Exeter, Dr. Phillpotts; and the sisterhood gained great applause for their efficiency in acting as nurses during the prevalence of cholera in 1848-49. A violent agitation however was raised at Plymouth against Miss Sellon and her community, who were accused of being emissaries of Rome in disguise; and on finding that some of the practices adopted in the sisterhood were not in accordance with the spirit of the Established Church, the Bishop of Exeter withdrew from them his episcopal sanction and patronage. As with the institutions whose general system she has imitated, Miss Sellon's Protestant Sisters of Mercy are divided into classes, and such of them as reside in the establishment live in community and wear a peculiar garb, their time being given either to the active duties of benevolence, or to reading, prayer, and religious meditation or quiet occupation. The chief difference between this Protestant and the Roman Catholic institutions would indeed seem to be in the fact that in Miss Sellon's community the vows are not irrevocable; but of course there are other differences arising from the peculiarities of the Romish discipline, which could only be distantly imitated in any Protestant establishment. Miss Sellon afterwards established branches of her community at Bristol, in London, and in other places, over which she exercises a general inspection in conjunction with Dr. Pusey. Her community however having lost the sanction of the Bishop of Exeter, has not succeeded in obtaining the formal approval of any other member of the episcopal bench, and occupies accordingly a very anomalous position in the Established Church.

SELVA, GIANNANTONIO, was born of respectable parents, at Venice, June 13, 1753, and had for his earliest instructor his uncle the Abbate Gianmaria Selva, a man of considerable literary and scientific attainments. His inclination leading him to make choice of art as his future profession, he was placed under Pietro Antonio Novelli (a painter who died in 1804, aged seventy-five); but after he had grounded himself in drawing and the elements of painting, he passed to the study of architecture, and became a pupil of Temanza [TEMANZA, TOMASSO]. In 1778 he set out for Rome, where besides studying the various architectural monuments of that capital, he became intimately acquainted with Pindemonte, Piranesi, Battoni, Quarenghi, and others, who either then were, or afterwards became distinguished, for among them was Canova, with whom he visited Naples, Pompeii, Caserta, and Pæstum. While at Rome, he also obtained the notice and favour of his countryman the noble Girolamo Zulian, who was there in quality of ambassador from the republic, and who was a liberal encourager of art. By him Selva was commissioned to embellish and fit up a saloon in his palace expressly for an entertainment given to the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria and his bride; before which he had been similarly employed by the Senator Rezzonico to decorate an apartment for him, which was to have been done by Quarenghi, but that architect was then obliged to depart for Russia. [QUARENGHI, GIACOMO.] On quitting Rome Selva visited France and England, in both which countries he diligently collected information of every kind bearing upon architecture and building; and returned to Venice at the close of 1780. There, as opportunity offered, he introduced various practical improvements, and among them greater attention to internal convenience and disposition of plan, setting also the example of a more sober taste in design. Among the private

to have written also several works relating to the religious doctrines, rites, and ceremonies of the Sabians.

SE'NECA, LUCIUS ANNEUS, was probably born a few years before the Christian era, at Cordoba in Spain, and was brought to Rome while quite a child for the prosecution of his studies and for his health. (Con. ad Helv.,' 16.) He was the second son of Marcus Annæus Seneca, the rhetorician, and the author of 'Suasoriæ, Controversiæ, Declamationumque Excerpta,' whose memory was so strong that he could repeat two thousand words in the same order as he heard them. He had the reputation of being a man of taste, but when we consider that his taste was so comprehensive as to admit a hundred to the rank of orators in a century whose orators fame limits to five or six, we may reasonably doubt its value and delicacy. As was natural with such a man, he assiduously directed the studies of his son to rhetoric, a preference which Lucius soon rebelled against, and, placing himself under Papirius Fabianus, Attalus, and Sotion, devoted himself to philosophy. In common with many others who aspired to wisdom, young Seneca travelled into Greece and Egypt, and in his 'Quæstiones Naturales' (a remarkable work, which shows him to have been master of the scientific knowledge of his time), he has judicious and accurate remarks on Egypt and on the Nile. But his father at length succeeded in convincing him that worldly interests ought not to be sacrificed to philosophy, and he undertook the business of an advocate. He became quæstor, and under the emperor Claudius rose to distinction; but the particulars of his life are at this period nowhere traceable with any degree of certainty, and we must therefore suspend our judgment as to the truth of Messalina's accusation against him of adultery with Julia, daughter of Germanicus. (Tacit., Ann.,' xiii. 42.) His intimacy and connection with her were certainly very equivocal, and the manners of the time still more so; but then Messalina, who was humbled by the pride of the princess, and who nowhere manifested any nice sense of right and wrong, is not worthy of much credit. The result however was Julia's exile and subsequent assassination, and Seneca's banishment to Corsica. Here, according to his account, he spent his time in the study of philosophy, and writing his treatise on Consolation.' The stoicism looks very well on paper, but, unfortunately for his credit, we find him courting the emperor in a servile strain of adulation, and begging to be restored to favour. On the death of Messalina Claudius married Agrippina, who prevailed on him to recal Seneca, and to bestow on him the office of prætor (Tacit., 'Ann.,' xii. 8), and she afterwards made him, with Afranius Burrhus, tutor to her son Nero. To Seneca's lot fell the instructing of the young prince in the principles of philosophy and the precepts of wisdom and virtue: with what success all the world knows. In fact an impartial scrutiny of the events of that period, and of Seneca's connection with Nero, leads to the probable conclusion of his being a pander to Nero's worst vices. Not to repeat the many stories current at Rome of his particular acts (which if not fully attested, are yet equally so with those of his virtue and decorum), we will only insist on his immense wealth, and demand whether Nero was a man likely to have bestowed such munificent presents (avaricious as he was known to be) upon one who had no other claim upon him than the instruction of precepts and axioms which he must have laughed at in supreme contempt? Juvenal speaks of "the gardens of the wealthy Seneca." He possessed, besides these gardens and country villas, a superb palace in Rome, sumptuously furnished, containing five hundred cedar tables with feet of ivory, and of exquisite workmanship. His hard cash amounted to 300,000 sestertia, or 2,421,870l. of our money; a sum, the magnitude of which might well excite the sarcastic inquiry of Suilius, by what wisdom or precepts of philosophy Seneca had been enabled in the short space of four years to accumulate it? (Tacit., xiii. 42, &c.) We will not affirm with his enemies that he instigated or abetted Nero in the murder of his mother, though we know that Seneca became the foe of his former protectress, and Seneca was the author of the letter which Nero sent in his own name to the senate, in which she was charged with conspiring against her son, and with having committed suicide on the discovery of her guilt.

Seneca however soon found that the tyrant who had made such singular use of his precepts, and whose vices had so enriched his philosophical abode, had cast jealous eyes upon this very wealth. He therefore with consummate address offered to surrender the immense treasures which he had accumulated, and begged permission to retire on a small competency. Nero would not accept this. Seneca then shut himself up, "kept no more levees, declined the usual civilities which had been paid to him, and under pretence of indisposition avoided appearing in public." (Tacit., Ann.,' xiv. 53, &c.) Nero now attempted to poison him by means of Cleonicus, but he failed in the attempt. Shortly after Antonius Natalis, when on his trial for his share in the conspiracy of Piso, mentioned Seneca as one of the conspirators. All Seneca's biographers loudly deny this. Wishing to keep their Stoic free from the slightest taint, they adopt the most absurd conjectures, assert the most puerile motives, and suppose anything and everything that could clear him of the charge. One says Natalis wished to curry favour with Nero by implicating Seneca. But was Nero a man to need such roundabout measures? Another confidently asserts (upon a 'perhaps' of Brucker) that Nero himself instigated the charge. Upon what authority is this said? These are the most reasonable of the suppositions. We dissent from them all,

BIOG. DIV. VOL. V.

and we dissent from nearly every judgment of Seneca that we have hitherto seen. Seneca, by confession of every authority, dreaded Nero, had cause to dread him, and therefore even to save his lifo from impending danger would have strong reason for joining the conspiracy. Piso and Seneca were intimate friends. Natalis had said that he had been sent by Piso to visit Seneca during his illness, and to complain of his having refused to see Piso, and that Seneca, in reply, had said that frequent conversations could be of no service to either party, but that he considered his own safety as involved in that of Piso. (Tacit., 'Ann.,' xv. 60.) Granius Sylvanus, tribune of the prætorian cohort, was sent to ask Seneca whether he recollected what passed between Natalis and himself. Sylvanus proceeded to his country-house near Rome, to which Seneca had either accidentally or purposely (Tacitus does not decide which) returned from Campania on that day; and he there delivered his message. Seneca replied, that he had received a complaint from Piso of his having refused to see him, and that the state of his health, which required repose, had been his apology. He added that he saw no reason why he should prefer the safety of another person to his own. We do not see in Seneca's life anything contradictory to the supposition of his being implicated in any conspiracy whatever: certainly not in one against Nero.

Nero, satisfied of his treason, ordered him to put himself to death. He bore this fate with Stoic fortitude, and opened a vein in each arm. His advanced age however caused the blood to flow so slowly that it was found necessary to open also the veins in his legs. This still not succeeding, Statius Annæus gave him a dose of poison, but, owing to the feeble state of his vital powers, it produced little effect. He then ordered his attendants to carry him to a warm bath, where he was speedily suffocated, A.D. 65. His wife Paulina is asserted by his biographers to have "refused every consolation except that of dying with her husband, and earnestly solicited the friendly hand of the executioner." Dion Cassius asserts that Paulina, who was considerably younger, was forced to have her veins opened owing to the stoical exhortations of her husband, and to fulfil her frequent promise of never surviving him. Tacitus says (xv. 63) that her veins were opened in compliance with her own wish, and that the blood was stopped by her attendants at the command of Nero: he adds that it is doubtful whether she was conscious of her veins being tied up.

6

The death of Seneca has been loudly applauded-has sometimes been called sublime; but this is owing to an ignorance of the time and inattention to Seneca's own doctrines. With the Stoics death is nothing ("mors est non esse," Ep.,' liv.); it is not an evil, but the absence of all evil ("mors adeò extra omne malum est, ut sit extra omnem malorum metum," Ep.,' xxx.). There is nothing after death-death itself is nothing:

"Post mortem nihil est, ipsaque mors nihil." ("Troades,' act. i.) With such a doctrine there could be no fear of death, and consequently we find that courage to die was common in Seneca's time. In fact his death was like his writings-pompous, inflated, epigrammatic, and striking to common judgments, but bearing no inspection. His terse aphoristic style has rendered him one of the most frequently-quoted authors of antiquity; and it was Scaliger, we believe, who remarked that he did more honour to the works of others than to his own. Besides his Physical Questions,' 'Epistles,' and various moral treatises, he is the supposed author of ten tragedies. On this matter however there is much dispute, some declaring these tragedies to be the composition of five or six Senecas; but Quintilian, whose authority is superior to every one on the matter, speaks of Seneca without surname or qualification, and in quoting a verse from the 'Medea,' cites it as a verse of Seneca, and not of one of the Senecas. ('Instit. Orat.,' ix. 2.) Further, Quinctilian, in his list of the Roman poets (x. 1) (in which each name is accompanied by a distinguishing epithet), makes no mention of any author of these ten tragedies; but he says of Seneca that he wrote orations, poems, epistles, and dialogues, thus appearing to include the tragedies under the term poems. The argument drawn from Seneca's own silence respecting them, or respecting any poetry of his whatever, is but negative, and is nullified by Tacitus, who distinctly asserts him to have written verses ever since Nero had taken to write them. ('Ann.,' xiv. 52.) But apart from these historical evidences, we believe internal evidence to be quite sufficient to convince the most sceptical-evidence not only of style and epigram, but of uniform coincidence in thought and expression.

Of the intrinsic merit of these tragedies there is as much difference of opinion as of their authorship. They have been lauded by commentators and abused by critics. They have been judged from a false point of view. They have been considered as imitations of the Greek dramas, and have been considered as dramas. Both these points of view are erroneous. They were never written for representation, but for reading aloud. This simple fact overturns all criticisms. Not being intended for the stage, any dramatic objection must be unfounded; nor could they for the same reason have been imitations of the Greek, which were written for representation. The proof of this fact is to be seen in the history of the Roman drama and literature by any one who looks attentively, and is to be seen also by a scrutiny of the pieces themselves. The plot is often concluded in the first act, but still he goes on through the other four with great patience. The

2 D