JOHN, one of the most learned men of his time, as well as a distinguished statesman and lawyer, was born at Salvington, in Sussex, on the 16th December 1584. His father was John Selden, a minstrel, and his mother, whose heart the minstrel is said to have won by his proficiency in music, was Margaret Baker, a descendant of a knightly family of that name in Kent. Their son John received his early education at the free grammar school of Chichester, where he progressed so rapidly in his studies, that he was removed to Hart Hall, Oxford, at the early age of fourteen. After remaining there for four years, he entered himself at Clifford's Inn for the study of law, and in 1604 he removed to the Inner Temple. "After he had continued there," says Wood, "a sedulous student for some time, he did, by the help of a strong body and a vast memory, not only run through the whole body of the law, but became a prodigy in most parts of learning, especially in those which were not common, or little frequented or regarded by the generality of students of his time. So that in a few years his name was wonderfully advanced, not only at home, but in foreign countries, and was usually styled the great dictator of learning of the English nation." His reputation for learning, particularly on all subjects connected with law, must speedily have gained him a lucrative practice, though he was more employed as a conveyancer and chamber counsel than as a pleader. Indeed, judging from what of his speeches remain, eloquence cannot be said to have been one of his distinguishing qualifications. His earliest work, the Analecta Anglo-Britannica, a chronological digest of records relating to the history of England previous to the Norman invasion, was finished in 1607, but was not published till eight years afterwards. In 1610 appeared his England's Epinomis, and Junt Anglorum facies altera, both illustrative of the state and progress of English law; and the same year he published an essay on The Duel or Single Combat. In 1614 appeared his largest English, and in the opinion of some his best, book, on Titles of Honour, a work which is still regarded as an authority upon that subject. In 1617 he published the first edition of his celebrated work, De Diis Syris, and the following year his History of Tither. In the latter of these works, while maintaining the legal, he denied the divine right of the clergy to receive tithes; and in consequence was summoned before the High Commission Court, when he had to make a public acknowledgment of his sorrow for having published his opinions, though he did not in any way recant them.

In 1621, Selden, though not then a member of the House, was sent for by the Commons to give his opinion on the questions in dispute between them and the Crown. On that occasion he advised them so strongly to maintain their rights and privileges, that he was committed to prison; but through the influence of the bishop of Winchester, he was liberated after an incarceration of five weeks. In 1624 he sat in Parliament as one of the representatives of the borough of Lancaster, but took no prominent part in the business of that session. The same year he was chosen reader of Lyons Inn, but refused to accept the office, which so offended the benchers that they ordered him to be fined, and to be for ever disabled from being called to the bench. This order, however, was subsequently rescinded, and Selden was called to the bench in 1632. In the first parliament of Charles I., which met in 1625, Selden sat as one of the representatives of Great Bedwin, and declared himself so warmly against the Duke of Buckingham, that when, in the following parliament, his Grace was impeached by the House of Commons, he was one of the members appointed to prepare the articles and to manage the prosecution. In the parliament which met in March 1628, Selden again represented the town of Lancaster, and took a very prominent part in the proceedings. He rendered very efficient aid in the preparation of the celebrated Petition of Rights, and was one of the speakers appointed to confer with the Upper House in order to obtain its concurrence in an address to the king. The result was, that the measure, having the support of both Houses, at length received the reluctant assent of the king. Selden was also one of those that drew up a remonstrance to the king for the removal of Buckingham, and demanded that judgment be given against him upon the impeachment of the last parliament; and also a remonstrance declaring that the impost of tonnage and poundage was no prerogative of the crown. In all these matters Selden's vast learning was of the utmost importance. His knowledge of the laws and constitution of the country furnished him with numerous authorities, and enabled him to support his arguments with an unanswerable mass of facts and precedents. It was in this that he was chiefly distinguished as a debater.

During the recess he applied himself to literary pursuits, and gave to the world his Marmora Arundeliana, an account of the Arundelian Marbles, which had lately been brought to England. Parliament again met in January 1629, and Selden appeared more active than ever in the popular cause. The violent opposition of this parliament to the measures of the court speedily brought about its dissolution, and Selden with several others were committed to the Tower. At first their treatment was extremely harsh and rigorous, being denied even the use of books or writing materials. At length, after a confinement of eight months, they were brought up before the King's Bench, and offered their liberty upon granting security for their good behaviour. This, however, was refused; and, though the strictness of their confinement was more and more relaxed, till it became little more than a name, it was not till May 1631 that Selden, through the influence of the Earls of Arundel and Pembroke, was liberated on bail, and not till the beginning of 1634 that he received a free discharge. In 1646, parliament voted L5000 to be paid to each of these gentlemen, or their heirs, for the losses they had sustained on this occasion. Among the fruits of this period were his two learned works, De Successionibus in Bona In 1635 was published his *Mare Clausum*, a work written a good many years before in answer to Grotius's *Mare Liberum*, and now published at the request of the king, in consequence of a dispute with the Dutch regarding their fisheries on our shores. It was dedicated to his majesty, and this has been regarded by many as indicating a change in Selden's views regarding the court party. Be this as it may, we do not find that he was so frequently or prominently opposed to the court party as formerly. The next four years of Selden's life yield us nothing of interest; but at the end of that period he published his *De Jure Naturali et Gentium juxta disciplinam Hebraeorum*. It is not a little remarkable that Selden does not appear to have taken any part in the great Ship-money case of 1638, although his services would have been of the utmost value on behalf of Hampden. It may be that he declined to interfere, or perhaps the Hampden party saw reason to suspect him of an inclination towards the court party.

In 1640 he was unanimously chosen to represent the University of Oxford in the Long Parliament, and we now find him not only less violently opposed to the Crown party, but very frequently supporting their measures. He gave his opinion with the king as to the right of the bishops to a seat in parliament; and though he was one of the members named by the House to prepare the accusations against the Earl of Strafford, he was not one of those appointed to conduct the prosecution, and voted against the majority who condemned the earl. He also opposed the resolutions of the House which led to the exclusion of the bishops from parliament. The Lord Keeper Littleton having displeased the king, Charles wrote to Lord Falkland requiring that the great seal be taken from the present keeper, and given either to Banks or Selden. That this offer was made by the king from a belief that Selden was in his interest, may be readily supposed, seeing that afterwards, when Selden opposed in the House the king's Commission of Array, his majesty was much troubled, and desired Lord Falkland to write a friendly letter to Selden on the subject. Selden acknowledged that he had spoken all the more strongly against the commission, in order that he might be able to speak the more freely against the ordinance of the parliament for the militia, to which he was equally opposed, and which was to be brought up for discussion on a subsequent occasion. This he also did his utmost to overthrow, but unsuccessfully. In 1643 he was appointed one of the lay members to sit in the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, and the same year he was appointed by the House of Commons keeper of the records in the Tower. In 1644 he subscribed the Solemn League and Covenant, and the following year he was one of the twelve commoners chosen Commissioners to the Admiralty. The same year he was chosen Master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge, an honour which he declined; and in 1647 he was appointed one of the parliamentary visitors of Oxford University.

When Selden found that there was no possibility of a reconciliation being effected between the king and the parliament, he seems to have withdrawn himself from the arena of political strife. His name does not appear among those members who were imprisoned or expelled by the army, nor yet among those who continued to assume the office of legislators. He took no part in the arraignment of the king, and it does not even appear what his opinion was on that transaction. Cromwell seemed desirous to secure his services, and is said to have applied to him, personally and through mutual friends, to answer the *Eikon Basilike*, but he declined. Whatever opinion may be formed of Selden's conduct latterly, it is no small argument in favour of his consistency and uprightness, that he retained the confidence and good-will of both parties at a time when party feeling ran so high. The true explanation seems to be, that, foreseeing the calamities of a civil war, to which the violent proceedings of the popular party were evidently leading, he did what he could to check them. He died, on 30th November 1654, at White Friars, the house of the dowager Duchess of Kent, with whom he lived as legal adviser, and to whom he is said by some to have been married. "Mr Selden," says Lord Clarendon, "was a person whom no character can flatter, or transmit in any expressions equal to his virtue. He was of so stupendous learning in all kinds, and in all languages (as may appear in his excellent and transcendent writings), that a man would have thought he had been entirely conversant amongst books, and had never spent an hour but in reading and writing; yet his humanity, courtesy, and affability was such, that he would have been thought to have been bred in the best courts, but that his good nature, charity, and delight in doing good, and in communicating all he knew, exceeded that breeding. His style in all his writings seems harsh, and sometimes obscure, which is not wholly to be imputed to the abstruse subjects of which he commonly treated, out of the paths trod by other men, but to a little undervaluing the beauty of a style, and too much propensity to the language of antiquity; but in his conversation he was the most clear discourser, and had the best faculty of making hard things easy, and presenting them to the understanding, of any man that hath been known."

Among his later works may be mentioned *De Anno Civilis et Calendaris Reipublicae Judaicae*; *Uxor Hebraica seu de Nuptiis et Divorcis*; *De Synedris et prefecturis Juridicis veterum Hebraeorum*; *De Nummis*. A complete edition of his works, with a Memoir of the Author, by Dr David Wilkins, appeared in 6 vols. folio, 1726. Selden's name is best known in the present day by his Table-Talk, a work published thirty-five years after his death by Richard Milward, who had acted as his amanuensis for twenty years. It is a collection of his remarks and opinions on various subjects, especially relating to religion and politics.

**Seleucia**, or Seleucella (Seleucis), several ancient cities founded by Seleucus Nicator, king of Syria, and called after his name. The most important are the following:

- **Seleucia Pieria**, the seaport of Antioch, on the north side of the Bay of Antioch, at the foot of a mountain anciently called Coryphaeum, now Jebel Musa, about 8 miles N. by W. of the mouth of the Orontes. It was strongly fortified with a double line of defences, connected with a castellated fort on the summit of the hill. The harbour was well suited for the galleys of the ancients, and of its substantial piers considerable portions still remain. Besides the outer port, formed by two piers, there was an inner basin, to which an entrance was cut through the solid rock, and defended by a tower on each side. For supplying water to the harbour a great work was constructed, consisting partly of tunnels and partly of deep cuttings, for a distance of 1088 yards. Of all these structures, as well as of several temples, an amphitheatre, and many tombs in the rocks, considerable remains are yet to be seen, confirming the accuracy of the description that Polybius gives of the city. Seleucia was a place of much importance in the wars between the Syrian and Egyptian monarchs. It was taken by Ptolemy Euergetes during his invasion of Syria, and retained by the Egyptians until the time of Antiochus the Great. This monarch led an army against the city, and by taking the suburbs and arsenal, forced it to surrender, about 220 B.C. Seleucia afterwards passed into the hands of the Romans, and received from Pompey the dignity of a free city. It is noted in Scripture history as the place where Paul set sail on his first missionary journey (Acts xiii. 4).

- **Seleucia Tracheotis**, an important town of Cilicia, in a fertile plain on the left bank of the Calycadnus, about 68 miles S.W. of Tarsus. It was well built, much superior in style to the other towns of the country, and attracted many to it on account of the beauty of its situation, as well as an oracle of Apollo which it possessed, and an annual festival which was held here. No historical event of any importance is connected with the name of Seleucia Trachecitis. Extensive remains of the ancient city still exist at a place called Selefkich. Among these may be traced a theatre, temple, and other large buildings.

**Seleucia-on-the-Tigris**, so called from its position, in order to distinguish it from the other towns of that name, stood at the point where an artificial canal connected the waters of the Euphrates and Tigris, 40 miles N. of Babylon. It was a large and important city, containing, it is said, in the time of its prosperity, a population of 600,000 souls; and it was second in commercial importance only to Alexandria. Having been the capital of the Macedonian possessions in the East, Seleucia still retained, after the fall of that empire, an independent position, and a thoroughly Greek character. It was governed by a senate of 300, was strongly fortified, and thus able to defy the power of the Parthians, whose empire reached almost to the gates. The oriental city of Ctesiphon rose on the other side of the Tigris, only three miles off, and finally supplanted Seleucia in the power and splendour which it had inherited from the old Babylon. It was the Romans, however, who took and sacked Seleucia, notwithstanding its hostility to their enemies, 165 A.D. From this blow the city never recovered; and the place relapsed into a marshy desert.

**Seleucidæ**, or the Syro-Macedonian era, is a computation of time, commencing from the establishment of the Seleucidæ (by Seleucus Nicator), a race of Greek kings, who reigned as successors of Alexander the Great in Syria, as the Ptolemies did in Egypt. This era we find expressed in the books of the Maccabees, and on a great number of Greek medals struck by the cities of Syria. The Jews call it the era of contracts, and the Arabs the era of the two horns. According to the best accounts, the first year of this era falls in 311 B.C., being twelve years after Alexander's death.

**Seleucus I.** and his successors. See Syria.

**Selim.** See Turkey.

**Selimno, Selimna, or Islemje,** a town of European Turkey, Rumelia, in the eyalet, and 70 miles N. by W. of Adrianople, at the south foot of the Balkan Hills. It is enclosed by walls, and contains three mosques. Here are extensive plantations of roses, and manufactures of the essence of roses, of cloth, and of highly-prized fire-arms and gun-locks. Large fairs are held here; and it is one of the most important places of trade in Turkey. The inhabitants are almost all Bulgarians. Pop. 20,000.

**Selinus,** the most westerly, as well as one of the most important, of the Greek colonies in Sicily, on the south coast of that island, at the mouth of a small river, 4 miles W. of the Hypsas. The original settlers came partly from Megara Hyblaea, on the east coast of Sicily, and partly from Megara in Greece, the parent city of that colony. The date of the settlement is not exactly known, but was probably about 628 B.C. It derived its name (from orela, wild parsley) from the quantities of that herb which grew in the vicinity, and adopted a sprig of it as the symbol of the city. Selinus rapidly rose to a high degree of power and prosperity; but was involved in frequent contests with the aborigines and the Carthaginians. The city of Segesta, too, was a formidable rival, and frequently an enemy. Selinus was in alliance with Carthage when Hamilcar undertook his expedition against Sicily in 480 B.C., but rendered no effectual aid to that general. But at the time of the Athenian expedition against Syracuse, Selinus had enjoyed half a century of peace and prosperity, and acquired great military resources and large stores of wealth. In the disputes between Selinus and Segesta, the former called in the aid of Syracuse, and the latter that of Athens. Hence the Athenian siege of Syracuse. After its failure, the Selinantes pressed their enemies to extremities, and so led them to call in the aid of Carthage. With this assistance they defeated the forces of Selinus in 410 B.C.; and in the following spring an army of 100,000 Carthaginians, under Hannibal, son of Gisco, landed in Sicily; and before any of its allies could send succour, laid siege to Selinus. Notwithstanding a desperate resistance, the place was taken, after ten days' siege. The walls were destroyed; and though permission was given to the inhabitants to occupy the city, as subjects of Carthage, Selinus never recovered its former prosperity. During the first Punic war the Carthaginians destroyed the city, and removed its inhabitants to Lilybaeum. Selinus was never rebuilt, and its site is now completely desolate, and overgrown with brushwood. The remains of the ancient walls may be traced on a small hill near the sea, and within their limits the ruins of three Doric temples lie. Outside the walls, which enclose a comparatively small area, are traces of two edifices, whose character is unknown; and on a hill to the east stood three temples, which must have been among the largest and most magnificent in the ancient world. The place is now called Torre dei Pulci.

**Seljook.** See Asia, § Turkish Tribes.

**Selkirk, Alexander,** whose adventures gave rise to Defoe's well-known historical romance of *Robinson Crusoe*, was born at Largo, in Fifeshire, Scotland, about the year 1676. He was bred a seaman, and went from England, in 1703, in the capacity of sailing-master of a small vessel, called the Cinque-Ports Galley, Charles Pickering captain. In September of the same year he sailed from Cork, in company with another ship, called the St George, commanded by the celebrated navigator William Dampier, intended to cruise against the Spaniards in the South Sea. On the coast of Brazil Pickering died, and was succeeded in the command by his lieutenant, Thomas Stradling. They proceeded on their voyage round Cape Horn to the island of Juan Fernandez, whence they were driven by the appearance of two French ships, of 36 guns each, and left five of Stradling's men there on shore, who were taken off by the French. From this they sailed to the coast of America, where Dampier and Stradling quarrelled, and separated by agreement, on the 19th of May 1704. In September following, Stradling came again to the island of Juan Fernandez, where Selkirk and his captain had a difference, which, with the circumstance of the ship's being very leaky, and in bad condition, induced him to determine upon staying there alone; but when his companions were about to depart, his resolution was shaken, and he desired to be taken on board again. The captain, however, refused to admit him, and he was obliged to remain, having nothing but his clothes, bedding, a gun, and a small quantity of powder and ball; a hatchet, a knife, and a kettle; with his books, and mathematical and nautical instruments. He kept up his spirits tolerably till he saw the vessel put off, when, as he afterwards related, his heart yearned within him, and melted at parting at once with his comrades and all human society.

Thus left sole monarch of the island, with plenty of the necessaries of life, he found himself in a situation which was hardly supportable. He had fish, goats' flesh, turnips and other vegetables; yet he grew dejected, languid, and melancholy, to such a degree as to be scarcely able to refrain from doing violence to himself. Eighteen months passed before he could, by reasoning, reading his Bible, and study, be thoroughly reconciled to his condition. At length he grew happy, employing himself in decorating his huts, chasing the goats, which he equalled in speed, and scarcely ever failed in catching. He also tamed young kids, laming them to prevent their becoming wild; and he kept a guard of tame cats about him, to defend him when asleep from the rats, that were very troublesome. When his clothes were worn out, he made others of goat-skins, but could not succeed in making shoes, with the use of which, however, habit, in time, enabled him to dispense. His only liquor was water. He computed that during his abode in the island he had caught a thousand goats, of which he had let go five hundred, after marking them by slitting their ears. Commodore Anson's people, who were there about thirty years afterwards, found the first goat which they shot upon landing was thus marked, and, as it appeared to be very old, concluded that it had been under the power of Selkirk.

But it appears by Captain Carteret's account of his voyage in the Swallow sloop, that other persons practised this mode of marking, as he found a goat with his ears thus slit on the neighbouring island of Mas-a-fuera, where Selkirk never was. He made companions of his tame goats and cats, often dancing and singing with them. Although he constantly performed his devotions at stated hours, and read aloud, yet, when he was taken off the island, his language, from disuse of conversation, had become scarcely intelligible. In this solitude he continued four years and four months, during which time only two incidents happened which he thought worth relating, the occurrences of every day being in his circumstances nearly similar. The one was that, pursuing a goat eagerly, he caught it just on the edge of a precipice which was covered with bushes, so that he did not perceive it; and he fell to the bottom, where he lay, according to Captain Rogers's account, twenty-four hours senseless; but, as he related to Sir Richard Steele, he computed, by the alteration of the moon, that he had lain three days. When he came to himself, he found the goat lying under him dead. It was with great difficulty that he could crawl to his habitation, whence he was unable to stir for ten days, and did not recover of his bruises for a long time. The other event was the arrival of a ship, which he at first supposed to be French. And such is the natural love of society in the human mind, that he was eager to abandon his solitary felicity, and surrender himself to them, although enemies; but upon their landing he found them to be Spaniards, of whom he had too great a dread to trust himself in their hands. They were by this time so near that it required all his agility to escape, which he effected by climbing into a thick tree, being shot at several times as he ran off. Fortunately the Spaniards did not discover him, though they stayed some time under the tree where he was hidden, and killed some goats just by. In this solitude Selkirk remained until the 24th of February 1709, when he saw two ships come into the bay, and knew them to be English. He immediately lighted a fire as a signal; and on their coming to shore, found they were the Duke, Captain Rogers, and the Duchess, Captain Courtney, being two privateers from Bristol. He gave them the best entertainment he could afford; and as they had been a long time at sea without fresh provisions, the goats which he caught were highly acceptable. His habitation, consisting of two huts, one to sleep in, and the other for dressing his food, was so obscurely situated, and so difficult of access, that only one of the ship's officers would accompany him to it. Dampier, who was pilot on board the Duke, and knew Selkirk very well, told Captain Rogers that, when on board the Cinque-Ports, he was the best seaman in the vessel, upon which Captain Rogers appointed him master's mate of the Duke. After a fortnight's stay at Juan Fernandez, the ships proceeded on their cruise against the Spaniards; plundered a town on the coast of Peru; took a Manilla ship off California; and returned by way of the East Indies to England, where they arrived on the 1st of October 1711—Selkirk having been absent, on the day of his arrival in London, eight years, one month, and three days, more than half of which time he had spent alone on the island. The public curiosity being excited respecting him, he was induced to put his papers into the hands of Defoe, to arrange and form them into a regular narrative. These papers must have been drawn up after he left Juan Fernandez, as he had no means of recording his transactions there. Captain Cooke remarks, as an extraordinary circumstance, that he had contrived to keep an account of the days of the week and the month; but this might be done, as Defoe makes Robinson Crusoe do, by cutting notches in a post, or many other methods. From this account of Selkirk, Defoe adopted the notion of writing a more extensive work, the famous romance of Robinson Crusoe. After his return to England, Selkirk waited in London till he got his effects realized, and then proceeded, in the spring of 1712, to his native village of Largo. For a few days he enjoyed the society of his relatives and friends; but, from long habit, he soon felt averse to society, and was most happy in being alone. In the upper part of the garden attached to his father's house he formed a kind of cave or grotto, which commanded an extensive and delightful view of the bay of Largo, and the shores of the Forth. In musing here, or wandering through a secluded and solitary valley called Keil's Den, and fishing in the bay, he spent the greater part of his time. How long he remained here cannot be ascertained, but he eloped some time afterwards with a girl of the neighbourhood, named Sophia Bruce, and proceeded with her to London. He never returned to Largo, and but little is known of him during the latter part of his life. Sophia Bruce appears to have died between 1717 and 1720; for in the latter year he again married Frances Candis, who survived him. Selkirk died lieutenant on board his Majesty's ship Weymouth, some time in the year 1723; and it is believed that he had no children by either of his wives. (See Life and Adventures of Alexander Selkirk, by John Howell, Edinburgh.)