He tries to excuse his own weakness when in exile in one of his letters to Lucilius. "There are certain movements," he says, "which we cannot control; our tears gush forth against our will and these tears soothe us. Sometimes we may obey nature without compromising our dignity."* In another letter he presents the same idea in another point of view. "It is idle to say that the sage must not be moved at any thing; that his soul ought to be as exempt from troubles and storms as the ether which is above the clouds." Seneca was a firm believer in the unity of the human race; at least he sought to make all mankind regard each other as brothers. "Philosophy teaches us," he says "to adore God and to love men; to remember that the gods are the masters of all things, and that mankind form one family." Where we find nobler precepts than the following?"Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors. Permit yourself to do nothing in private which you would be afraid to do before your enemy."

* *

In the De Ira, which is believed to have been the first written of Seneca's works, there are many noble sentiments. Here we find a "higher law" first inculcated. "No one need boast," he says, "of being good according to law. How many duties are incumbent on man which are not written in any code!" It is in the same essay he tells us that man was designed by the Creator to be a helper to his fellow-man; that to those who do evil we should express gentle and fraternal sentiments; and that we should remember that none of us can declare ourselves entirely innocent. The philosopher is still more Christian, if possible, in his De Vita Beata, in which he says that we should do good to those entirely unknown. to us; to the wicked, and even to our enemies. It is by no means sufficient, he tells us, that our discourses please; they should bear fruit.T

In short, the maxims of Seneca have been adopted by the moralists of every enlightened nation of modern times. This is particularly true of the following: "The most powerful man has reason to fear as much evil as he

*Hæc (philosophia) docet colere divina, humana diligere, et penes Deos imperium esse, inter homines consortium.-Ep. 90.

+ Ib., 1, 5.

§ Ib, 1.

Chap. 20.

De Ira, 11, 29. Non delectent verba nostra sed prosint. Aliæ artes ad ingenium totæ pertinent, hic animi negotium agitur. Non quærit æger medicum eloquentem sed sanantem.-Ep. 75.

can do." "A traveller has many hosts, but few friends." "Little minds carry into great things the vice which is innate in them.” "The way of precept is long; that of example is shorter and surer." "A part of life is passed in doing evil, the greater part in doing nothing; almost the whole in doing any thing but what ought to be done."

These detached thoughts can give but a faint idea of the value of Seneca's ethics; but we think they show at least that the author was a great thinker, and that his works are worth reading.

For nearly seventeen hundred years Seneca has been alternately praised and decried, but if his numerous critics be examined, it will be found that his admirers are much more competent judges than his traducers. An example or two will suffice to prove this. All will admit that Pope was a greater moralist than Dryden-indeed, the latter is a very indifferent moralist, if he can be said to have any claim to the title-whereas the author of the "Essay on Man" is one of the greatest moralists the modern world has produced. But Pope had the greatest admiration for Seneca; whereas Dryden has given currency to the worst slanders of his enemies, at the same time condemning his writings as almost worthless. In France he has been assailed by Laharpe, who not only condemns the man, but makes an elaborate and tedious effort to disparage his writings.* Diderot, upon the other hand, has written an eloquent vindication of Seneca.† None who know the two authors need be informed of the superior abilities of Diderot; and the estimate of Diderot is, that "the portico, the academy, and the lyceum of Greece have produced no one comparable to Seneca in moral philosophy."+

Still more emphatic, if possible, is the admiration of Montaigne, who quotes Seneca everywhere throughout his works, and devotes a whole essay to a vindication of Seneca and Plutarch.

Many have condemned Seneca as a teacher, because his pupil, Nero, proved a bad man and a tyrant. Need we say that this is very defective logic? How often have the most exemplary parents had the worst children? Many a good father has been assassinated by his son.

* Vide Cours de Littérature, tome III., part ii., pp. 160-348. Essai sur la vie de Sénèque, par M. Diderot.

Is

Le portique, l'académie, et le lycée de la Grèce n'ont rien produit de comparable à Séneque pour la philosophie morale.-Essai sur la vie de Sénèque, c. xliv.

it more discreditable to any one to be murdered by his pupil than by his son? Seneca had many other pupils, but they all proved good men except Nero; all with the exception of Nero would have sacrificed their lives to save him, rather than put him to death themselves. But fortunately, Seneca has left us specimens enough of his mode of teaching to vindicate him fully in this respect. Knowing that his imperial pupil permitted himself to be influenced injuriously by idle tales, he pointed out to him the evil consequences of such a course; and he did so in a manner that rendered his advice applicable to all ranks of life and to every age. Such for example, is the character of the following passage:

"It is good for every man to fortify himself on his weak side; and if he loves his peace, he must not be inquisitive, and hearken to tale-bearers; for the man that is over-curious to hear and see every thing, multiplies troubles to himself; for a man does not feel what he does not know. He that is listening after private discourse, and what people say of him, shall never be at peace. How many things that are innocent in themselves, are yet made injurious by misconstruction? Wherefore some things we are to pause upon, others to laugh at, others to pardon. Or, if we cannot avoid the sense of indignities, let us shun the open profession of it; which may be easily done, as appears by many examples of those that have suppressed their anger, under the awe of a greater fear. It is a good caution not to believe any thing until we are very certain of it; for many probable things prove false, and a short time will make evidence of the undoubted truth. We are prone to believe many things which we are unwilling to hear, and so we conclude, and take up a prejudice before we can judge. Never condemn a friend unheard; or without letting him know his accuser, or his crime."

Not one of those who have condemned Seneca were capable of giving a nobler lesson than this. Had Nero only profited by it, he would not have committed one of the atrocities he did. If it be objected that this is the language of a moralist rather than of a literary instructor, and that it is not such as a tutor is expected to teach his pupil, we can find sufficient of the latter character also in the works of Seneca. Thus, in what author, ancient or modern, do we find more excellent thoughts than those in the philosopher's eighty-eighth Epistle to Lucilius, "On Liberal Studies?" "You see," he says in this essay, "why studies are called liberal; it is because they are worthy of a liberal man; besides, a study which is truly liberal, makes us liberal."* He then proceeds to examine whether liberal studies make a man good; and he

* Quare liberalia studia dicta sint, vides, quia homine libero digna sunt; ceterum unum studium vere liberale est, quod liberum facit.-Ep. lxxxviii.

shows that their tendency is to do so. At the same time, he makes distinctions which are too often lost sight of by teachers; he says, that while the study of grammar, logic, geometry, &c., is well calculated to develop the intellectual faculties, it is by no means sufficient to give the student a correct idea of right and wrong. He thinks that one may be very expert in the examination of words and syllables, in demonstrating propositions in geometry, and be well skilled in music, and yet be timid, greedy, and vicious.* Seneca shows that in teaching either a language or a science, the teacher has much more to do than to impress the principles of it on his pupil; he is bound to teach him the difference between right and wrong, partly by oral precepts, and partly by causing him to read good books which illustrate the benefits of virtue and the evil consequences of vice.

At the same time, Seneca would not have the minds of his pupils overtaxed; he would neither give them too many books, nor too many studies. He would have them understand one book, or science, or art, before taking up another. It were well that many of our modern teachers would adopt the same course; then there would be much more thoroughness and less pretension than there is. Referring to books, the philosopher says:

"Be pleased likewise to consider that the reading many authors, and books of all sorts, betrays a vague and unsteady disposition. You must attach yourself to some in particular, and thoroughly digest what you read, if you would intrust the faithful memory with any thing of use. He that is everywhere is nowhere. They who spend their time in travelling, meet indeed, with many a host, but few friends. This is necessarily the case of those who apply not familiarly to any one study but run over every thing cursorily and in haste. The food profits not, nor gives due nourishment to the body, that abides not some time therein. Nothing so much prevents the recovery of health as a frequent change of supposed remedies. A wound is not soon healed, when different salves are tried by way of experiment. A plant thrives not, nor can well take root, that is moved from place to place."

No educator worthy of the name will deny this. It is sufficiently evident to any reflecting mind, that those who study a dozen different branches at the same time, can not study any of them thoroughly. As well might one try to learn at the same time the crafts of the printer, the watchmaker, the carpenter, the shoemaker, and the tailor; he who makes such an attempt will be sure to fail. It is

* Quid ex his metum demit, cupiditatem eximit, libidinem frænat? Ad geometriam transemus, et ad musicum; nihil apud illas invenies quod vetet timere, vetet cupere; quæ quisquis ignorat, alia frustra scit.-Ep. lxxxviii.

much better and more creditable to understand one science or art thoroughly, than to have a vague, smattering knowledge of a dozen; at the same time it is not strange that none make louder pretensions, than those condemned by Seneca.

It is also Seneca who has given the best rules for letterwriting. "You complain," he writes to Lucilius, “that my letters are not written with sufficient care; but do we bestow that care on our conversation except we wish to speak in an affected manner? It is my wish that my letters may resemble a conversation which we have had together, sitting down or walking. My desire is that they may be simple and easy, and that they bear no trace either of research or labour." The best modern letterwriters, including Swift, Addison, Montaigne, Fontenelle, Cowper, and Chesterfield, have adopted this rule. If Seneca's own letters do not seem simple or easy, but may be regarded as essays rather than epistles, this does not render his opinion on the subject the less correct. Aristotle was not a poet in the ordinary acceptation of the term; yet no one has written better, or indeed so well, on poetry. He did not pretend to be capable of producing either an epic or a tragedy; but the rules by which he judges both have possessed the force and dignity of laws in every enlightened country for many centuries. No poet worthy of the name pretends to set aside these laws on the ground that the author of them had no right to make them since he was not a poet himself; yet this is the sort of logic which critics like Laharpe bring to bear on Seneca.* They condemn his style, when they cannot condemn his thoughts.

It is very true that his style is not equal to that of Cicero, Livy, or Sallust; yet we are bound to remember that he did not live in the Augustan age. The Latin language had begun to degenerate before he was born; if his latinity is inferior to that of the authors mentioned, so is that of Tacitus and Juvenal; but who fails to admire either on this account? There are many who affect to be greatly dissatisfied with the style of Seneca, who would never have supposed it was defective had not Quintilian, the contemporary and rival of the philosopher, found fault with it. But although Quintilian was evidently jealous of the success and fame of Seneca, he deems it judicious to be cautious in con

* Vide Cours de Littérature, tome iii., part ii., p. 163 et seq.