In treating each genre of literature I have deliberately postponed discussion of Seneca. The reason is a belief which has falsely circulated concerning me: it has been supposed that I condemn him, and even that I detest him. This befell me in the course of my efforts to bring style back into conformity with stricter standards at a time when it was depraved, and paralysed by every kind of fault. Now at that period Seneca was practically the only author being read by the young. I protest that I was not trying to banish him entirely; but neither was I about to let him be preferred to his betters. These Seneca had attacked endlessly, realizing that his own style was utterly different from theirs ….And the young did not so much imitate him as worship him; they dropped as far away below him as he himself had fallen from the heights of the ancient authors … Generally speaking, however, Seneca had many virtues as a writer. His mind was ready, and well stocked. He was capable of immense application. His factual knowledge was great (although in this he was sometimes misled by the people to whom he delegated some of his researches). He treated almost every subject of literary study: speeches of his, poems, letters, and dialogues are all before the public. In philosophy he was not thorough enough; and yet he was a superlative assailant of the vices. There are many brilliant sententiae [see below, p. 513] in him, as there is also much that is worth reading for moral improvement. In style, however, much of his writing is depraved; and its effect is all the deadlier because it is rich in attractive faults.