as well as many other towns on the Euphrates and the Tigris, and she constructed the hanging gardens in Media, of which later writers give us such strange accounts. Besides conquering many nations of Asia, she subdued Egypt and a great part of Ethiopia, but was unsuccessful in an attack which she made upon India. After a reign of forty-two years she resigned the sovereignty to her son Ninyas, and disappeared from the earth, taking her flight to heaven in the form of a dove. Such is a brief abstract of the account in Diodorus, the fabulous nature of which is still more apparent in the details of his narrative. We have already pointed out, in the article SARDANAPALUS, the mythical character of the whole of the Assyrian history of Ctesias, and it is therefore unnecessary to dwell further upon the subject in the present place. A recent writer has brought forward many reasons for believing that Semiramis was originally a Syrian goddess, probably the same who was worshipped at Ascalon under the name of Astarte, or the Heavenly Aphrodite, to whom the dove was sacred (Lucian, de Syria Dea, 14, 33, 39). Hence the stories of her voluptuousness (Diod. H. 13), which were current even in the time of Augustus (Ov. Am. i. 5.11) (Comp. Movers, Die Phönizier, p. 631). SEMO SANCUS. [SANCUS.] SEMON, an engraver of precious stones, belonging to an early period, as is clear from the only work of his which is extant, namely, a stone in the form of a scarabaeus, engraved with the name MHMONO, but in the reverse order, and in archaic characters. It is very rare to find an old Greek gem inscribed with the name of the engraver, although this was the usual practice in the Roman period. (R. Rochette, Lettre à M. Schorn, p. 153, 2d ed.) [P.S.] SEMPRO'NIA. 1. The daughter of Tib. Gracchus, censor B. c. 169, and the sister of the two celebrated tribunes, married Scipio Africanus minor. We know nothing of her private life or character. On the sudden death of her husband, she and her mother Cornelia were suspected by some persons of having murdered him, since Scipio did not like her on account of her want of beauty and her sterility, and she likewise had no affection for him. But there is no evidence against her; and if Scipio was really murdered, Papirius Carbo was most probably the guilty party. [SCIPIO, No. 21, p. 750.] (Appian, B. C. i. 20; Liv. Epit. 59; Schol. Bob. pro Mil. p. 283.) 2. The wife of D. Junius Brutus, consul B. C. 77, was a woman of great personal attractions and literary accomplishments, but of a profligate character. She took part in Catiline's conspiracy, though her husband was not privy to it (Sall. Cat. 25,40). Asconius speaks of a Sempronia, the daughter of Tuditanus, and the mother of P. Clodius, who gave her testimony at the trial of Milo, in B. c. 52 and dammed up the Euphrates. As Nitocris probably lived about B. c. 600, has been maintained that this Semiramis must be a different person from the Semiramis of Ctesias. But there is no occasion to suppose two different queens of the name; the Semiramis of Herodotus is probably as fabulous as that of Ctesias, and merely arose from the practice we have noticed above, of assigning the great works in the East of unknown authorship to a queen of this name. (Ascon. in Milon. p. 41, ed. Orelli). Orelli supposes that she may be the same as the wife of Brutus mentioned above. SEMPRO'NIA GENS, patrician and plebeian. This gens was of great antiquity, and one of its members, A. Sempronius Atratinus, obtained the consulship as early as B. c. 497, twelve years after the foundation of the republic. The Sempronii were divided into many families, of which the ATRATINI were undoubtedly patrician, but all the others appear to have been plebeian: their names are ASELLIO, BLAESUS, DENSUS, GRACCHUS, LONGUS, MUSCA, PITIO, RUFUS, RUTILUS, SoPHUS, TUDITANUS. Of these, Atratinus, Gracchus, and Pitio alone occur on coins. The glory of the Sempronia gens is confined to the republican period. Very few persons of this name, and none of them of any importance, are mentioned under the empire. SEMUS (os), a Greek grammarian of uncertain date, wrote, according to Suidas (s. v.), eight books on Delos, two books of repíodo, one on Paros, one on Pergamus, and a work on Paeans. Suidas calls him an Elean, but it appears from Athenaeus (iii. p. 123, d.) that this is a mistake, and that he was a native of Delos. His work on Delos (Δηλιακά or Δηλιάς) was the most important, and is frequently referred to by Athenaeus, and once or twice by other writers (Athen. iii. p. 109, f., iv. p. 173, e., viii. pp. 331, f., 335, a., xi. p. 469, c., xiv. pp. 614, a., 637, b., 645, b., xv. p. 676, f.; Steph. Byz. s. v. Téyupa; Etym. Magn. s. v. Bisivos). Athenaeus also quotes (xiv. pp. 618, d., 622, a-d.) his work on Paeans (Tepl maiάvwv). We likewise find in Athenaeus (iii. p. 123, d.), a reference to a work of Semus on Islands (Nnoids), but it has been suggested with much probability that this is a false reading for Δηλιάς. (Vossius, De Histor. Graecis, p. 497, ed. Westermann.) SE NECA, M. ANNAEUS, was a native of Corduba (Cordova) in Spain. The time of his birth is uncertain; but it may be approximated to. He says (Contr. Praef. i. p. 67) that he considered that he had heard all the great orators, except Cicero; and that he might have heard Cicero, if the Civil Wars, by which he means the wars between Pompeius and Caesar, had not kept him at home (intra coloniam meam). Seneca appears to allude in this passage to some of Cicero's letters (ad Fam. vii. 33, ix. 16), in which Cicero speaks of Hirtius and Dolabella being his "dicendi discipuli " (B. C. 46). It is conjectured that as Seneca might be fifteen in B. c. 46, he may have been born on or about B. C. 61 (Clinton, Fasti), the year before C. Julius Caesar was praetor in Spain. Seneca was at Rome in the early period of the power of Augustus, for he says that he had seen Ovid declaiming before Arellius Fuscus (Contr. x. p. 172). Ovid was born B. c. 43. Seneca was an intimate friend of the rhetorician M. Porcius Latro, who was one of Ovid's masters. He also mentions the rhetorician Marillius, as the master of himself and of Latro. He afterwards returned to Spain, and married Helvia, by whom he had three sons, L. Annaeus Seneca, L. Annaeus Mela or Mella, the father of the poet Lucan, and Marcus Novatus. Novatus was the eldest son, and took the name of Junius Gallio, upon being adopted by Junius Gallio. Seneca was rich, and he belonged to the equestrian class. The time of his death is uncertain; but he probably lived till near the end of the reign of Ti- | berius, and died at Rome or in Italy. It appears that he was at Rome early in life, from what has been stated as to Ovid; and he must have returned to Spain, because his son Lucius was brought to Rome from Spain when he was an infant. (L. Seneca, Consol. ad Helviam.) Seneca was gifted with a prodigious memory. He was a man of letters, after the fashion of his time, when rhetoric or false eloquence was most in Vogue. His Controversiarum Libri decem, which he addressed to his three sons, were written when he was an old man. The first, second, seventh, eighth, and tenth books only, are extant, and these are somewhat mutilated: of the other books only fragments remain. These Controversiae are rhetorical exercises on imaginary cases, filled with common-places, such as a man of large verbal memory and great reading carries about with him as his ready money. Another work of the same class, attributed to Seneca, and written after the Controversiae, is the Suasoriarum Liber, which is probably not complete. We may collect, from its contents, what the subjects were on which the rhetoricians of that age exercised their wits: one of them is, "Shall Cicero apologise to Marcus Antonius? Shall he agree to burn his Philippics, if Antonius requires it ?" Another is, "Shall Alexander embark on the ocean?" If there are some good ideas and apt expressions in these puerile declamations, they have no value where they stand; and probably most of them are borrowed. No merit of form can compensate for worthlessness of matter. The eloquence of the Roman orators, which was derived from their political institutions, was silenced after the Civil Wars; and the puerilities of the rhetoricians were the signs of declining taste. The Controversiae and Suasoriarum Liber have often been published with the works of Seneca the son. The edition of A. Schottus appeared at Heidelberg, 1603 and 1604, Paris, 1607 and 1613. The Elzivir print of 1672, 8vo., contains the notes of N. Faber, A. Schottus, J. F. Gronovius, and others. The confusion between Seneca, the father, and Seneca, the philosopher, is fully cleared up by Lipsius, Electorum Lib. I. cap. 1, Opera, vol. i. p. 631, ed. 1675. [G. L.] SENECA, L. ANNAEUS, the son of M. Annaeus Seneca, was born at Corduba, probably about a few years B. C., and brought to Rome by his parents when he was a child. Though he was naturally of a weak body, he was a hard student from his youth, and he devoted himself with great ardour to rhetoric and philosophy. He also soon gained distinction as a pleader of causes, and he excited the jealousy and hatred of Caligula by the ability with which he conducted a case in the senate before the emperor. He was spared, it is said, because Caligula was assured by one of his mistresses that Seneca would soon die of disease. The emperor also affected to despise the eloquence of Seneca: he said that it was sand without lime (Sueton. Calig. 53). Seneca obtained the quaestorship, but the time is uncertain. In the first year of the reign of Claudius (A. D. 41), the successor of Caligula, Seneca was banished to Corsica. Claudius had recalled to Rome his nieces Agrippina and Julia, whom their brother Caligula had exiled to the island of Pontia (Ponza). It seems probable that Messalina, the wife of Claudius, was jealous of the influence of Julia with Claudius, and hated her for her haughty behaviour. Julia was again exiled, and Seneca's intimacy with her was a pretext for making him share her disgrace. What the facts really were is unknown; and the innocence of Seneca and Julia is at least as probable as their guilt, when Messalina was the accuser. In his exile in Corsica Seneca had the opportunity of practising the philosophy of the Stoics, to which he had attached himself. His Consolatio ad Helviam, or consolatory letter to his mother, was written during his residence in the island. If the Consolatio ad Polybium, which was also written during his exile, is the work of Seneca, it does him no credit. Polybius was the powerful freedman of Claudius, and the Consolatio is intended to comfort him on the occasion of the loss of his brother. But it also contains adulation of the emperor, and many expressions unworthy of a true Stoic, or of an honest man. The object of the address to Polybius was to have his sentence of exile recalled, even at the cost of his character. After eight years' residence in Corsica Seneca was recalled A. D. 49, by the influence of Agrippina (Tac. Ann. xii. 8), who had just married her uncle the emperor Claudius. From this time the life of Seneca is closely connected with that of Nero, and Tacitus is the chief authority for both. On his return he obtained a praetorship, and was made the tutor of the young Domitius, afterwards the emperor Nero, who was the son of Agrippina by a former husband. Agrippina relied on the reputation of Seneca and his advice as a means of securing the succession to her son; and she trusted to his gratitude to herself as a guarantee for his fidelity to her interests, and to his hatred of Claudius for the wrongs that he had suffered from him. It was unfortunate that the philosopher had so bad a pupil, but we cannot blame him for all that Nero learned and all that he did not learn. The youth had a taste for what was showy and superficial: he had no capacity for the studies which befit a man who has to govern a state. If Seneca had made a rhetorician of him after his own taste, that would have been something, but Domitius had not even the low ability to distinguish himself as a talker. There is no evidence to justify the imputation that Seneca encouraged his vicious propensities; and if Nero had followed the advice contained in Seneca's treatise, De Clementia ad Neronem Caesarem, written in the second yeas of Nero's reign, the young emperor might have been happy, and his administration beneficent. That Seneca would look upon his connection with Nero as a means of improving his fortunes and enjoying power, is just what most other men would have done, and would do now in the same circumstances; and that a man with such views would not be very rigid towards an unruly pupil is a reasonable inference. We know that he did not make Nero a wise man or a good man; we do not know that he helped to make him worse than he would have been; and in the absence of positive evidence of his corrupting the youth, and with the positive evidence of his own writings in his favour, it is a fair and just conclusion that he did as much with Nero as a man could who had accepted, and chose to retain a post in which his character could not possibly escape some impu tation. He who consents to be the tutor of a vicious youth of high station, whom he cannot control, must be content to take the advantages of his post, with the risk of being blamed for his pupil's vices. Claudius was poisoned by his niece and wife Agrippina A. D. 54, and Nero succeeded to the Imperial power. Tacitus (Ann. xiii. 2, &c.) states that both Burrus and Seneca attempted to check the young emperor's vicious propensities; and both combined to resist his mother's arrogant pretensions. A woman assuming the direct exercise of political power was a thing that the Romans had not yet seen, and it was inconsistent with all their notions. The opposition of Burrus and Seneca to the emperor's mother was the duty of good citizens. Nero pronounced the funeral oration in memory of Claudius. The panegyric on the deceased emperor was listened to with decency and patience till Nero came to that part of his discourse in which he spoke of the foresight and wisdom of Claudius, when there was a general laugh. The speech, which Nero delivered, was written by Seneca in a florid style, suited to the taste of the age, with little regard to truth, and none for his own character, for he afterwards wrote a satire (Apocolocyntosis) to ridicule the Apotheosis of the man whom he had despised and praised. In the first year of his reign Nero affected mildness and clemency, and such was the tone of his orationes to the senate; but these professions were the words of Seneca, uttered by the mouth of Nero; the object of Seneca was, as Tacitus says, either to give public evidence of the integrity of his counsels to the emperor, or to display his abilities. There might be something of both in his motives; but it is consistent with a fair judgment and the character of Seneca's writings to believe that he did attempt to keep Nero within the limits of decency and humanity. A somewhat ambiguous passage of Tacitus (Ann. xiii. 13), seems to affirm that he endeavoured to veil Nero's amour with Acte under a decent covering; and Cluvius (Tacit. Ann. xiv. 2) states that the amour with Acte was encouraged to prevent a detestable crime. "What a part for a Stoic to play," says one of Seneca's biographers, "whose duty it was to recall his disciple to the arms of his wife, the virtuous Octavia." The Stoic probably did the best that he could under the circumstances. The murder of Britannicus A. D. 55 was followed by large gifts from Nero to his friends; and "there were not wanting persons to affirm, that men who claimed a character for sober seriousness, divided among themselves houses and villae at that time, as if it were so much booty." (Tacit. Ann. xiii. 18.) The allusion is supposed to be to Seneca and Burrus; but the passage of Tacitus contains no distinct charge against either of them. It was unlucky for Seneca's reputation that he was rich; for a man in power cannot grow rich, even by honest means, without having dishonesty imputed to him. The struggle for dominion between Nero and his mother could only be decided by the ruin of one of them; and if Seneca wished to enjoy credit with Nero, it was necessary that he should get rid of this imperious woman. Fabius Rusticus says that Seneca maintained Burrus in his post of Praefectus Praetorio, when Nero intended to re move him on the ground of his supposed adherence to the cause of Agrippina (Tacit. Ann. xiii. 20). But Plinius and Cluvius Rufus said that Nero never doubted the fidelity of Burrus, and that in his alarm and his impatience to get rid of his mother, he could not be pacified till Burrus promised that she should be put to death, if she should be convicted of the designs which were imputed to her. Burrus and Seneca paid Agrippina a visit, with some freedmen, to be witnesses of what took place. Burrus charged her with treasonable designs, to which Agrippina replied with indignant eloquence. A reconciliation with Nero followed, her accusers were punished, and her friends rewarded; neither Burrus nor Seneca was under any imputation of having prejudiced Nero against her. The affair of P. Suilius (A. D. 58) brought some discredit on Seneca. Suilius had been a formidable instrument of tyranny under Claudius, and was justly hated. He was charged under a Senatusconsultum, which had amended the Lex Cincia, with receiving money for pleading causes; a feeble pretext for crushing an odious man. The defence of Suilius was an attack on Seneca: he charged him with debauching Julia, the daughter of Germanicus, and hinted at his commerce with women of the imperial family, probably meaning Agrippina; and he asked by what wisdom, by what precepts of philosophy he had, during a four-years' intimacy with an emperor, amassed a fortune of three hundred million sestertii: at Rome he was a hunter after testamentary gifts, an ensnarer of those who were childless; Italy and the provinces were drained by his exorbitant usury. His own profits, Suilius said, were moderate, and earned with toil ; and he would endure any thing rather than humble himself before an upstart favourite. We must assume that Suilius supposed that Seneca had moved against him in this matter: his words were reported to Seneca, and perhaps aggravated. A charge was got up against him, it is not said by whom, as to his infamous delations under Claudius, and he was banished to the Balearic Islands. The words of such a man are no proof of Seneca's guilt; but the enormous wealth of Seneca gave a colour of truth to any thing that was said against him. (Tacit. Ann. xiii. 42.) Nero's passion for Poppaea brought the contest between him and his mother to a crisis (Tacit. Ann. xiv. 1. A. D. 59). Poppaea burned to become the wife of Nero, but she saw that it was impossible while Agrippina lived. She plied Nero with her blandishments, her tears, and even her sarcasms; and at last he resolved to kill his mother, and the only question was as to the way of doing it. After an unsuccessful attempt to drown her, Nero, terrified at the failure of his plan, sent for Burrus and Seneca. Whether they were previously acquainted with the design against Agrippina's life is uncertain (Tacit. Ann. x7. 7). Dion Cassius (lxi. 12), with his usual malignity, accuses Seneca of instigating Nero to the crime. Burrus and Seneca were long silent in the presence of Nero; either they thought that it would be useless to dissuade the emperor from his purpose, or, what is more probable, they saw that either the mother or the son must perish. Seneca broke the silence by asking Burrus if orders should be given to the soldiers to put Agrippina to death. Burrus replied that the soldiers were devoted to the family of Germanicus, and would not shed the blood of his children; but Anicetus, he added, would finish | what he had begun. Anicetus performed his promise, and Agrippina died by the hand of assassins, A. D. 60. Seneca explained the words that he had used to Natalis, and the tribune carried them to the emperor. Nero was in close council with the two great ` ministers of his cruelty, his wife Poppaea and Tigellinus. Nero asked if Seneca was preparing to die voluntarily; and on the tribune replying that he saw no signs of fear, no gloomy indication in his words or countenance, he was ordered to go back and give him notice to die. The tribune, himself a party to the conspiracy of Piso, did not show himself again to Seneca, but he sent in a centurion with the order of death. Without show The imperial murderer fled as if he could leave his conscience behind him, to the city of Naples, whence he addressed a letter to the senate upon the death of his mother: he charged her with a conspiracy against himself, on the failure of which she had committed suicide. The author of the letter was Seneca (Tacit. Ann. xiv. 11): it is not extant, but a few words from it are quoted by Quintilian (Inst. Orat. viii. 5). This letter is Se-ing any sign of alarm, Seneca asked for his testaneca's great condemnation: he had consented to Agrippina being assassinated, and he added to this crime the despicable subterfuge of a lie which nobody could believe. From this time Nero felt more free, and Seneca in due time had his reward. In A. D. 63 Burrus died, and he may have been poisoned. Nero appointed two commanders of the Praetorians in place of Burrus, Fennius Rufus and Sofonius Tigellinus, whose infamy has been perpetuated with that of his master. The death of Burrus broke the power of Seneca: it diminished his influence towards good, and Nero was now in the hands of persons who were exactly suited to his taste. Tigellinus and Rufus began an attack on Seneca. His enormous wealth, a never-failing matter of charge against Seneca, his gardens and villae, more magnificent than those of the emperor, his exclusive claims to eloquence, and his disparagement of Nero's skill in driving and singing, were all urged against him; and it was time, they said, for Nero to get rid of a teacher. Seneca heard of the charges against him: he was rich, and he knew that Nero wanted money. He obtained an interview in which he addressed the emperor in a studied speech (Tacit. Ann. xiv. 53). He asked for permission to retire, and offered to surrender all that he had. Nero affected to be grateful for his past services, refused the proffered gift, and sent him away with perfidious assurances of his respect and affection. Seneca now altered his mode of life, saw little company, and seldom visited the city, on the ground of feeble health, or being occupied with his philosophical studies. ment, apparently with the intention of adding some legacies, but the centurion refused to allow this, on which Seneca told his friends that since he was forbidden to reward their services, his last testamentary bequest must be the portraiture of his life, which, if they kept in their memory, they would have the reputation of an honest life and of a constant friendship. He cheered his weeping friends by reminding them of the lessons of philosophy, and that he who had murdered a brother and a mother could not be expected to spare his teacher. Embracing his wife, he prayed her to moderate her grief, and to console herself for the loss of her husband by the reflection that he had lived an honourable life. But as Paullina protested that she would die with him, Seneca consented, and the same blow opened the veins in the arms of both. Seneca's body was attenuated by age and meagre diet; the blood would not flow easily, and he opened the veins in his legs. His torture was excessive; and to save himself and his wife the pain of seeing one another suffer, he bade her retire to her chamber. His last words were taken down in writing by persons who were called in for the purpose, and were afterwards published. Tacitus for some reason has not given the words, and he did not think proper to give the substance of them. The soldiers, at the entreaty of the slaves and freedmen of Seneca, stopped the wounds of Paullina, and she lived a few years longer; but her pallid face showed that the stream of life was largely drawn from her. Scandal, as usual, said that when she found that Nero did not wish her death, she was easily prevailed upon to submit to live. Seneca's torments being still prolonged, he took hemlock from his friend and physician, Statius Annaeus, but it had no effect. At last he entered a warm bath, and as he sprinkled some of the water on the slaves nearest to him, he said, that he made a libation to Jupiter the Liberator. He was then taken into a vapour stove, where he was quickly suffocated, A. D. 65. The body was burnt without ceremony, according to the instructions in a codicil to his will, which was made when he was in the full enjoyment of power and wealth. Seneca died, as was the fashion among the Romans, with the courage of a stoic; but with somewhat of a theatrical affectation which detracts from the dig When Nero, after plundering Italy and the provinces, began, like the Eighth Henry of England, the pillage of the temples and of things dedicated to religion, in order to meet his extravagant expenditure, Seneca, who feared that he might be involved in the odium of the sacrilege, though it is not said why he feared (Tacit. Ann. xv. 45), prayed for leave to retire into the country; and when it was refused, he kept his chamber on the pretence of sickness. A story was current that Nero tried to poison him, but the attempt failed. The conspiracy of Piso gave the emperor a pretext for a more direct attack on his teacher's life, though there was not complete evidence of Seneca being a party to the conspiracy (Tacit. Ann. xv. 60). Certain words of Seneca to Antonius Na-nity of the scene. Tacitus has not strongly centalis, which were of a suspicious character, were repeated to Nero; and Granius Sylvanus, a tribune of a Praetorian cohort, was sent by the emperor to Seneca to demand the meaning of them. It happened that Seneca was returning from Campania, and had rested at a villa four miles from the city. In the evening the tribune with a band of soldiers surrounded the house where Seneca was supping with his wife Pompeia Paullina and two friends. sured Seneca in any passage; but Dion Cassius collected from among the contradictory memoirs of the time every thing that was most unfavourable to his character. Seneca's great misfortune was to have known Nero; and though we cannot say that he was a truly great or a truly good man, his character will not lose by comparison with that of many others who have been placed in equally difficult circumstances. Whether he was privy to Piso's conspiracy or not, is a matter which has been warmly discussed, but cannot be determined; nor if we suppose that he was in the conspiracy, would that circumstance be an additional blot on the life of a man who had aided the tyrant in killing his mother. Seneca's fame rests on his numerous writings, which, with many faults, have also great merits. The following are Seneca's works: 1. De Ira, in three books, addressed to Novatus. Opinions vary as to the time when it was written. Lipsius concludes from book iii. c. 18, that it was written in the time of Caligula, in which case it would be the earliest of Seneca's works. But this conclusion is by no means certain; and it is unlikely that he wrote so freely of Caligula while thebeast" was alive. The author has exhausted the subject. In the first book he combats what Aristotle says of Anger in his Ethic. 2. De Consolatione ad Helviam Matrem Liber, which has been already mentioned. It is one of Seneca's best treatises. The conclusion from c. 17, that Seneca had been in Egypt, is by no means sure. 3. De Consolatione ad Polybium Liber, which has also been already mentioned: it was written in the third year of Seneca's Corsican exile. It is sometimes placed after the treatise De Brevitate Vitae. Diderot and others maintain that it is not the composition of Seneca, because it is not worthy of him, and contains sentiments inconsistent with the Consolatio ad Helviam and ad Marciam. But this internal evidence is not supported by any external evidence; and an unprejudiced criticism will vindicate the work as Seneca's, though it disgraces him. It contains (c. 26) a humiliating picture of the Roman world crouching before an enfranchised slave and a stupid master (Schlosser, Univ. Hist. Uebersicht, vol. iii. pt. 1. pp. 221, 410.) 4. Liber de Consolatione ad Marciam, written after his return from exile, was designed to console Marcia for the loss of her son. Marcia was the daughter of A. Cremutius Cordus. (Tacit. Ann. iv. 34; and the Consol, ad Marciam, c. 22.) 5. De Providentia Liber, or Quare bonis viris mala accidant cum sit Providentia, is addressed to the younger Lucilius, procurator of Sicily. The question that is here discussed often engaged the ancient philosophers: the stoical solution of the difficulty is that suicide is the remedy when misfortune has become intolerable. Lipsius calls this a Golden Book. In this discourse Seneca says that he intends to prove that Providence hath a power over all things, and that God is always present with us." (c. 1.) 6. De Animi Tranquillitate, addressed to Sere nus, probably written soon after Seneca's return from exile. It is in the form of a letter rather than a treatise the object is to discover the means by which tranquillity of mind can be obtained. This work may be compared with the treatise of Plutarch περὶ εὐθυμίας. This treatise was written soon after Seneca's return from exile (c. 1), when he was elevated to the praetorship, and had become He speaks as one who felt himself ill at ease in the splendour of the palace after living a solitary and frugal life. Nero's tutor. 7. De Constantia Sapientis seu quod in sapientem non cadit injuria, also addressed to Serenus, is founded on the stoical doctrine of the impassiveness of the wise man. "This book," saith Lipsius, "betokeneth a great mind, as great a wit, and much eloquence; in one word, it is one of his best." 8. De Clementia ad Neronem Caesarem Libri duo, which has been already mentioned. There is too much of the flatterer in this; but the advice is good. The second book is incomplete. It is in the first chapter of this second book that the anecdote is told of Nero's unwillingness to sign a sentence of execution, and his exclamation, "I would I could neither read nor write." The work was written at the beginning of Nero's reign. 9. De Brevitate Vitae ad Paulinum Liber, recommends the proper employment of time and the getting of wisdom as the chief purpose of life. Life is not really short, but we make it so. 10. De Vita Beata ad Gallionem, addressed to his brother, L. Junius Gallio, is probably one of the later works of Seneca, in which he maintains the stoical doctrine that there is no happiness without virtue; but he does not deny that other things, as health and riches, have their value. "No man hath condemned wisdom to perpetual poverty." The conclusion of the treatise is lost. 11. De Otio aut Secessu Sapientis, is sometimes joined to No. 10. 12. De Beneficiis Libri septem, addressed to Aebucius Liberalis, is an excellent discussion of the way of conferring a favour, and of the duties of the giver and of the receiver. The handling is not very methodical, but it is very complete. It is a treatise which all persons might read with profit. The seventh chapter of the fourth book contains the striking passage on Nature and God:-"What else is Nature but God, and a divine being and reason which by his searching assistance resideth in the world and all the parts thereof ?" &c. 13. Epistolae ad Lucilium, one hundred and twenty-four in number, are not the correspondence of daily life, like that of Cicero, but a collection of moral maxims and remarks without any systematic order. They contain much good matter, and have been favourite reading with many distinguished men. Montaigne was a great admirer of them, and thought them the best of Seneca's writings (Essay of Books). It is possible that these letters, and indeed many of Seneca's moral treatises, were written in the latter part of his life, and probably after he had lost the favour of Nero. That Seneca sought consolation and tranquillity of mind in literary occupation, is manifest. The thoughts which engaged him and the maxims which he inculcated on others were consolatory to himself at least, while he was busied with putting them into form; and that is as much as most philosophers get from their speculations in the way of comfort. Seneca was old when he wrote these epistles. (Ep. 12.) 14. Apocolocyntosis, is a satire against the emperor Claudius. The word is a play on the term Apotheosis or deification, and is equivalent in meaning to Pumpkinification, or the reception of Claudius among the pumpkins. The subject was well enough, but the treatment has no great merit; and Seneca probably had no other object than to gratify his spite against the emperor. If such a work was published in the lifetime of Seneca, he must have well known that it would not displease either Agrippina or Nero; and it leads to the probable inference, that the poisoning of Claudius was not a matter which he would complain of. In fact, the manner of the death of Claudius was a subject |