(_g_) A spurious work, as is now on all hands conceded, is the correspondence between Seneca and St. Paul. In his opposition to popular beliefs and superstitions, and in the purity of his moral tenets, Seneca approached some of the Christian doctrines, and it was no improbable supposition that at the Court of Nero he might have became acquainted with the Apostle of the Gentiles.[8] But the assumption of a correspondence of this kind is another affair. Its genuineness was believed from the time of Jerome (400) till the sixteenth century. [8] See Mr. Henderson’s _Life and Principate of Nero_, 286–7, and Mr. Glover’s _The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire_, 149. Seneca is generally considered to appear at his best in the _Consolation to his Mother Helvia_ and in the _Epistles to Lucilius_, which are therefore usually ranked as amongst his finest works. The latter work, which from the outset was designed for publication, is not an ordinary correspondence on the current affairs and interests of everyday life like Cicero’s Letters, but is philosophic in character; it covers a wide range of moral discussion and reflection, and is full of admirable maxims. Many of its sentiments have become commonplaces; their almost hackneyed character detracts perhaps somewhat from our appreciation of their intrinsic merit. On the other hand, the spitefulness of the _Apocolocyntosis_, the servility of the _Consolation to Polybius_, and the flattery of the _Clemency_, which was addressed to Nero, show the reverse of Seneca’s character. Of the characteristics of his style, however, and of his position in Roman literature--one of commanding importance--this is not the place to speak. His works reflect truly enough both the iron and the miry clay which entered into his mental and moral composition. III. “QUAESTIONES NATURALES” This work stands in a category by itself. It raises a number of difficult problems, in which every reader of it, whether classical scholar or not, is interested.