Plutarke is more uniforme and constant; Seneca more waving and diverse.  This doth labour, force, and extend himselfe, to arme and strengthen vertue against weaknesse, feare, and vitious desires; the other seemeth nothing so much to feare their force or attempt, and in a manner scorneth to hasten or change his pace about them, and to put himselfe upon his guard.  Plutarkes opinions are Platonicall, gentle and accommodable unto civill societie:  Senecaes Stoicall and Epicurian, further from common use, but in my conceit [Footnote:  Opinion.] more proper, particular, and more solid.  It appeareth in Seneca that he somewhat inclineth and yeeldeth to the tyrannic of the Emperors which were in his daies; for I verily believe, it is with a forced judgement he condemneth the cause of those noblie-minded murtherers of Caesar; Plutarke is every where free and open hearted; Seneca full-fraught with points and sallies; Plutarke stuft with matters.  The former doth move and enflame you more; the latter content, please, and pay you better:  This doth guide you, the other drive you on.  As for Cicero, of all his works, those that treat of Philosophie (namely morall) are they which best serve my turne, and square with my intent.  But boldly to confess the truth (for, since the bars of impudencie were broken downe, all curbing is taken away), his manner of writing seemeth verie tedious unto me, as doth all such like stuffe.  For his prefaces, definitions, divisions, and Etymologies consume the greatest part of his works; whatsoever quick, wittie, and pithie conceit is in him is surcharged and confounded by those his long and far-fetcht preambles.  If I bestow but one hour in reading them, which is much for me, and let me call to minde what substance or juice I have drawne from him, for the most part I find nothing but wind and ostentation in him; for he is not yet come to the arguments which make for his purpose, and reasons that properly concerne the knot or pith I seek after.  These Logicall and Aristotelian ordinances are not avail full for me, who onely endeavour to become more wise and sufficient, and not more wittie or eloquent.  I would have one begin with the last point:  I understand sufficiently what death and voluptuousnesse are:  let not a man busie himselfe to anatomize them.  At the first reading of a booke I seeke for good and solid reasons that may instruct me how to sustaine their assaults.  It is neither grammaticall subtilties nor logicall quiddities, nor the wittie contexture of choice words or arguments and syllogismes, that will serve my turne.  I like those discourses that give the first charge to the strongest part of the doubt; his are but flourishes, and languish everywhere.  They are good for schooles, at the barre, or for Orators and Preachers, where we may slumber:  and though we wake a quarter of an houre after, we may finde and trace him soone enough.  Such a manner of speech is fit for those judges that a man would corrupt by hooke or crooke, by right or