Seneca

Plutarch is the more uniform and consistent; Seneca the more uneven and various. He toils and strains every muscle and sinew to fortify virtue against weakness, fear, and evil appetites, which Plutarch seems to consider less dangerous, since he disdains to quicken his pace for them or to put himself on his guard against them. His opinions are Platonic, moderate, and suitable to a civilized society. Seneca's are Stoical and Epicurean, and much more unusual but, in my opinion, more suitable to the individual and more steadfast. In Seneca one seems to find some yielding to the tyranny of the emperors of his time, for I am sure that his judgement was forced when he condemned the cause of Caesar's noble hearted murderers; but Plutarch is everywhere unconstrained. Seneca is full of wit and sallies, Plutarch of substance

Book & Page: Michael Montaigne p.267

And Seneca vigorously remarks: 'The man who thinks it disgraceful not to repay a favor, would like to have no one to repay.'^ And Quintus Cicero puts the same thing from a meaner point of view when he says: 'One who thinks he cannot pay you
a debt can never be your friend.'

Michael Montaigne p.309

To see the efforts that Seneca takes to prepare himself for death, to see him sweating with the anguished effort to stiffen himself, and struggling for so long to keep a hold on his perch, would have shaken his reputation with me, had he not, in dying, most valiantly sustained it. His intense and frequent agitation shows that he was naturally a passionate and impetuous man. 'A great soul speaks more calmly and with more confidence.' 'A man's mind docs not differ in color from his soul.':}: He has to be convinced at his own expense, and this in some sort shows that he was hard-pressed by his enemy.

Michael Montaigne p.317

I do not deny, but he that hath such abridgments of all arts shall have a general notion of all kinds of knowledge. But he shall be like a man of many trades, that thrives less than he that seriously follows one. For it is Senecas rule ‘Study much, not many things’

Book & Page: Francis Bacon Oxford 102

And if any man be laborious in reading and study and yet idle in business and action, it's growth from some weakness of body or softness of spirit, such as Seneca ‘ Some men live so much in the shade, that whenever they are in the light they seem to be in trouble’, and not of learning. Well may it be that such a point of a man's nature may make him give himself to learning, but it is not learning that breadth any such point in his nature

Francis Bacon Oxford 130

‘There were more things which Diogenes would have refused, than those were which Alexander could have given or enjoyed.’

Francis Bacon Oxford 159

But Seneca given an excellent check to eloquence; [Let young men ... be roused to the matter, and not to the style; otherwise

Francis Bacon Oxford 244

Freed therefore and delivered from this doctrine of the philosophers heaves, whereby they feigned a higher elevation of men nature than was, (for we see in what a height of style Seneca writes, ‘It is true greatness to have in one the frailty of a man, and the security of a god ’, we may with more sobriety and truth receive the rest of their inquiries and labors.

Francis Bacon Oxford 245

And although the neglect of our times, wherein few men do hold any consolation touching the reformation of  their life (as Seneca excellently saith, ‘Everyone thinks about the parts of his life, no man thinks about the whole ’) may make this part seem superfluous;

Francis Bacon Oxford 255

A prophecy, as it seems, of the Roman Empire. Seneca the tragedian hath these verses: In far off years there shall come the ages when ocean shall loosen the bounds of the world, and the huge earth shall lie revealed, and Tiphys shall disclose new worlds: and Thule shall no longer be the limit of all lands.- a prophecy of the discovery of America

Francis Bacon Oxford 412

Seneca saith well that ‘anger is like ruin, which breaks itself upon that it falls. ’

Francis Bacon Oxford 448

Taking all this into account, it seems to me that what Seneca should have done is to teach us all the principal truths of which the knowledge is required in order to facilitate the practice of virtue, and to regulate our desires and passions, and hence to enjoy natural happiness. This would have made his book the best and most useful a pagan philosopher could have written. However, this is only my personal opinion.

Book & Page: Rene Descartes Oxford - Passion of the soul p. 37

What he says at the beginning is very good, that 'all human beings wish to live happily, but when it comes to discerning what it is that makes a life happy, they are in the dark'. But we need to know what it means to vivere beate; in French I would say vivre heureusement, but heureusement can mean 'fortunately', and there is a difference between happiness _and good for tune, which is that good fortune depends only on things that are external to us, so that those people to whom some good occurs that they have not obtained by their own efforts are judged more fortunate than wise, whereas happiness, it seems to me, consists in a perfect contentment of mind and an inner satisfaction, which are not typically to be found in those most voured by fortune, and that the wise acquire without fortune's help. Thus, vivere beate, to happy life is nothing other than to have
a perfectly contented and satisfied mind

Book & Page: Rene Descartes Oxford - Passion of the soul p. 34

I have said in my previous letter what I thought Seneca should have dealt with in his book; I will now examine what he does deal with. In his book, I observe, in general, only these three things: first, he tries to explain what the supreme good is, and he gives various definitions of it; secondly, he argues against the opinion of Epicurus; thirdly, he replies to those who object that philosophers do not live according to the rules they themselves lay down. But in order to show in more detail how he handles these points, shall briefly discuss the book chapter by chapter.

Book & Page: Rene Descartes Oxford - Passion of the soul p.39

In the first, he criticizes those who are guided by custom and example rather than reason whenever show any judgment in the matter of living, but always a blind trust, as he puts it. He approves, however, of taking advice from those we think wisest; but he wants us to make use of our own judgment, as well, in order to examine their opinions. Here I agree with him most strongly; for although many people are not capable of finding the right path by themselves, there are, nonetheless, who cannot recognize it well enough, when it is clearly pointed out by someone else; and be that as it may, we have reason to be satisfied with our Conscience, and to be confident that our opinions in matters of ethics are the best they could be, when, instead of blindly following the example of other people, we have made a point of seeking guidance from the wisest ones, and used all the powers of our own mind to examine what we ought to do. But, while Seneca takes much trouble here to adorn his style, he is not always sufficiently precise in the expression of his thought; for instance, when he says Sanabimur; he seems to be teaching that in order to be wise it is sufficient to be eccentric, which is not, however, what he means.

Book & Page: Rene Descartes Oxford - Passion of the soul p.39

In the second chapter, he does little more than repeat, in other words, what he has said in the first; all he adds is that what is commonly valued as good is not so. Then in the third, after many more superfluous words, he finally gives his opinion concerning the supreme good;* namely, that “I follow the guidance of nature” and that “to mold ourselves according to Natures law and pattern - this is true wisdom” and that “the happy life, therefore, is a life that is in harmony with its own nature”. These explanations seem to me highly obscure: for, when he speaks of 'nature, he cannot, surely, mean our natural inclinations, since these normally incline us to give way to pleasure, and he is arguing that we should not do this; but the context suggests that by rerum naturam, he means the order established by God* in all things in this world, and that, considering this order as infallible and independent of our will, when he says “to follow the guidance of nature and to mold ourselves according to its law and pattern - that is pure wisdom”,* he means that it, is wisdom to acquiesce in the order of things, and to do what we think we were born to do; or rather, to put the matter in Christian terms, that it is wisdom to submit to the will of God, and to follow it in all our actions; and that ”the happy life, therefore, is a life that is in harmony with its own nature” that happiness consists in following the order of the world in this way, and taking everything that happens to us in the right spirit. This explains almost nothing, and one cannot sufficiently see how it relates to what he adds immediately after, that this happiness cannot be obtained “unless the mind is sound” unless he also means that “to live accordingly to nature” is the same
as living according to true reason.

Book & Page: Rene Descartes Oxford - Passion of the soul p.39

In the fourth and fifth chapters, he  gives various other definitions of the supreme good, which all have some connection with the meaning of the first definition, but none of them explains it sufficiently; and by their variety they show that Seneca did not clearly understand what he meant; for the more clearly one conceives a thing, the more committed one is expressing it in one way and one way only. He seems to me to have come closest in chapter V; when he says “the happy man is one who is freed from both fear and desire because of the gift of reason, * and that ”the life that is happy has been founded on correct and trustworthy judgment”. But as long as he does not share with us the reasons why we should fear and desire nothing, all of this is very little help.

Book & Page: Rene Descartes Oxford - Passion of the soul p.40

In the fourth and fifth chapters, he  gives various other definitions of the supreme good, which all have some connection with the meaning of the first definition, but none of them explains it sufficiently; and by their variety they show that Seneca did not clearly understand what he meant; for the more clearly one conceives a thing, the more committed one is expressing it in one way and one way only. He seems to me to have come closest in chapter V; when he says “the happy man is one who is freed from both fear and desire because of the gift of reason, * and that ”the life that is happy has been founded on correct and trustworthy judgment”. But as long as he does not share with us the reasons why we should fear and desire nothing, all of this is very little help.

Book & Page: Rene Descartes Oxford - Passion of the soul p.41