he was constant and faithful in his friendships; and they would also have vindicated his claim to the character of a philosopher and moralist. One of Seneca's best works is that "On Benefits."* This, as well as the letters to Lucilius, was written after the author had retired from court. He was at least sixtyseven years when he wrote it, and there is no finer specimen of his writings. He describes the proper manner of conferring benefits, and points out the duties of those who receive them; then, in the form of episodes, he treats of gratitude and ingratitude. Passing over some works of minor interest, we come to the "Seven books of Questions on Nature,'† which is one of the most curious and interesting monuments that antiquity has left us. Those who read this work carefully, cannot form a low estimate of the scientific attainments of the Romans even in Nero's time. It discusses a large variety of subjects in natural philosophy, including many phenomena of which it is generally supposed at the present day the ancients knew nothing. The author's remarks on the inundations of the Nile; the geological characteristics of Egypt; the nature of earthquakes, volcanoes, &c., might easily be mistaken for those of some of the most recent modern investigators. They are very much superior to the similar "Questions" of Bacon, although much more modestly put forward than those of the latter. "The theory of earthquakes," says Humboldt, "as given by Seneca, contains the germ of all that has been stated in our times concerning the action of elastic vapours enclosed in the interior of the globe."+ Some critics attribute several tragedies to Seneca, namely, Media, Hippolytus, Hercules in Eta, Agamemnon, Thyestes, and Hercules Furens. By far the best of all is Media, and this is the only one that Quintilian and Lipsius regard as his; they think the rest were either written by his father, or by some other member of the Seneca family; and there is good reason to believe that they are right, for the style of all the tragedies, with the sole exception of the Media, is inferior to that of even the most careless passages in his other writings. Fourteen letters, purporting to have been written to St. Paul, have also been attributed to Seneca. They were printed in several of the earlier editions of his *De Beneficiis. Naturalum Quæstionum, libri vii. works, and none seemed to have questioned their genuineness; but they are now almost universally regarded as spurious. Indeed, it is impossible to regard them in any other light without assuming that the philosopher had greatly degenerated in his style, for the Latin of the letters to St. Paul is absolutely barbarous. The probability is that they were forged in the middle ages. As the apostle was undoubtedly at Rome some years before the death of Seneca, and was well treated by the philosopher's brother Gallio, if not by himself, it was not difficult to make the credulous readers of the middle ages believe that an extensive correspondence was carried on between the two reformers. The plausibility of such a theory was much increased by the fact that there are very few of the great maxims of Christianity which are not found in one form or other in the writings of Seneca. But the improbability that he would entirely alter his style in writing to so learned a linguist as St. Paul-making use of a semi-barbarous Latinity-is not the only argument against the genuineness of the letters alluded to. Chronology affords one still more conclusive if possible. St. Paul was in nominal captivity at Rome in the year 62 A. D., and Seneca was put to death at the beginning of 65. The date of Paul's Epistle to the Romans is generally supposed to have been the year 62, scarcely any believe that it was made public earlier; whereas, nearly all the works of Seneca, including several of his letters to Lucilius, had been published before the year 60. How, then, could he have borrowed all his pious maxims from St. Paul's Epistle? The impossibility of this will be the more apparent when it is borne in mind that in none of the works of Seneca is he more Christian-like than in his De Ira, which was one of the first of his productions, and was written, at least, eighteen years (44) before the visit of the apostle to Rome. At this time Paul had not written his first Epistle; nor is it likely that a single book of the New Testament had seen the light. It is idle then, to regard St. Paul as the instructor of Seneca, notwithstanding the decidedly Christian character of many of the maxims of the philosopher, as we shall see presently. In the mean time let us remember, that there are many thoughts in the works of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero which have been adopted by the most pious * Vide, Etude critique sur les rapports supposés entre Sénèque et Saint Paul, par Aubertin, 8vo, Paris, 1857. Christians, and each of those great thinkers has been carefully studied by Seneca. He was also familiar with the dogmas of Pythagoras and Zoroaster; and it cannot be denied that he was an original thinker himself. We have already remarked, that although Seneca availed himself of good maxims wherever he found them, he had a decided partiality for the Stoic doctrines; and it must not be forgotten that whatever were the faults of the Stoics, they made a nearer approach to Christianity, at least in their ethics, than any other ancient sect. It is not strange, therefore, that their chief representative is more like a Christian in his precepts and modes of thinking, than any other ancient philosopher. There is not one of his philosophical works, which does not contain evidence of this similarity. None of the Fathers of the Church has written more piously of the Creator, than Seneca has in his work "On Providence." "Every man knows," he says, "without telling, that this wonderful fabric of the universe is not without a governor; and that the constant order cannot be the work of chance; for the parts would then fall foul one upon another. The motions of the stars, and their influences, are acted by the command of an eternal decree. It is by the dictate of an Almighty Power that the heavy body of the earth hangs in balance. Whence come the revolutions of the seasons, and the flux of the rivers? the wonderful virtue of the smallest seeds? as an oak to arise from an acorn.' With the same view the author then proceeds to point out many of the phenomena of nature, including volcanoes, earthquakes, boiling fountains, the tides, new islands starting out of the sea, &c. Seneca is equally earnest and eloquent in proving the immortality of the soul. "When the day shall come," he says," that will separate this composition, human and divine, I will leave this body here, where I found it, and return to the gods; not that I am altogether absent from them even now; though detained from superior happiness, by this heavy earthly clog. This short stay in mortal life, is but the prelude to a better, and more lasting life above. As we are detained nine months in our mother's womb, which prepares us not for itself, to dwell always therein, but to that place whereunto we are sent, as soon as we are fit to breathe the vital air, and strong enough to bear the light; so, in that space of time, which reacheth from infancy to old age inclusive, we aspire after another birth as from the womb of Nature. Another beginning, another state of things expects us. We cannot as yet reach heaven, till duly qualified by this interval." It is needless to show how many of the sentiments contained in this passage are in strict accordance with the teachings of the Bible. Neither Christian nor Pagan has defined reason more correctly, or more beautifully, than Seneca; nor has any one more happily exhibited the difference between man and the lower animals. "Fertility," says he, "recommends the vine, as a fine flavour does the juice of the grape; the excellency in a stag is swiftness; in beasts of burden, a strong back; an exquisite quickness of scent distinguishes the hound; speed the greyhound; fierceness and courage the bull-dog, or such as are ordained to attack wild beasts: and what is the excellency in man? Reason. It is this, wherein man excels the brute creation, and draws near to the gods. Perfect reason, therefore, is the proper good of men. Other qualities he hath in common with plants and animals: is he strong? so are lions. Is he beautiful? so are peacocks. Is he swift? so are horses. I do not say how far he may excel, or be excelled in any of these points; for I am not inquiring after what is greatest in him, but what is his own. Has he a body? so has a tree. Has he internal power of self-motion? so have beasts, and even worms. Hath he a voice? some dogs have a louder; more shrill is that of the eagle, more deep that of the bull; and more sweet and voluble is the voice of the nightingale. What, then, is proper only to man? Reason. This, when right and perfect, completes the happiness of man." No philosopher of any age could claim a nobler ancestry than Seneca. His family belonged to the nobility in every sense of the term; it was at once ancient, wealthy, intellectual, and well informed. But there was no haughtiness in the character of Seneca. He valued all men, not according to their rank or ancestry, but according to their intelligence and worth. As there are exceptions to all rules, so in this case Claudius and Nero may be regarded as exceptions in relation to the conduct of Seneca. But all others to whom Seneca pretended friendship were really good men; and it was for their goodness and wisdom they were distinguished, not for their wealth or ancient lineage. This was true both of Annæus Serenus, and of Burrhus; and it was equally true of Lucilius, to whom the philosopher addressed the one hundred and twenty-four letters of his that are still extant. He is perfectly consistent with himself, therefore, in maintaining that virtue is the only nobility, and that we should treat all men according to their merits, as he recommends in the following passage: "It is not well done to be still murmuring against nature and fortune; as if it were their unkindness that makes you inconsiderable, when it is only by your own weakness that you make yourself so; for it is virtue, not pedigree, that renders a man either valuable or happy. Philosophy does not either reject or choose any man for his quality. Socrates was no patrician, Cleanthes but an under-gardener; neither did Plato dignify philosophy by his birth, but by his goodness. All these worthy men are our progenitors, if we will but do ourselves the honour to become their disciples. The original of all mankind was the same; and it is only a clear conscience that makes any man noble; for that derives even from heaven itself. It is the saying of a great man, that if we could but trace our descents, we should find all slaves to come from princes, and all princes from slaves." We need adduce no further evidence of the eminently humane and enlightened character of Seneca's philosophy, but still more noble if possible is the morality which he everywhere inculcates. If he did not act in accordance with that morality himself, as many of his contemporaries allege, the fact is to be regretted; but no sensible person rejects gold because found in combination with the basest and most poisonous of metals. The precepts of Seneca possess a value which is altogether independent of their author. If their author were entirely unknown they would lose none of their value, because it is not their authorship, but the truth which they contain, that renders them valuable and useful. In presenting our readers a few of these maxims of Seneca as specimens we must necessarily be discursive and brief; nor can we pretend that those we can collect in this cursory manner will always be the best in themselves, or the most characteristic of the author. But if they show that, whatever were his faults, he was a great moralist, one of our chief objects in discussing the subject will have been attained. There is no gift on which Seneca sets a higher value than wisdom; yet he assures us that if it were offered to him on condition that he would keep it exclusively to himself, he would not wish it. * He cared nothing for the fame of authorship. Any one so disposed, he writes to his friend Lucilius, might accuse him of borrowing or plagiarizing, but he was resolved to appropriate a good and useful idea wherever he found it. In another epistle he says that whatever is true, is his-that is, it is common property, as emanating from the Deity. Of a kindred character is the maxim that philosophy is not intended to show light to a few favored individuals, but like the sun is designed by the Creator for the benefit of all. § *In hoc gaudeo aliquid discere ut doceam: nec me ulla res delectabit, licet eximia sit et salutaris, quam mihi uni sciturus sim. Si cum hac exceptione detur sapientia, ut illam inclusam teneam, rejiciam.-Ep. 6. + Quidquid bene dictum est ab ullo meum est.-Ep. 16. Quod verum est meum est.-Ep. 12. § Non rejicit quemquam philosophia nec elijit: omnibus lucet.-Ep. 44. |
