(Senatus, from senex; ἀρχοντής from ἀρχοντής, a man advanced in years), in all the republics of antiquity, was an assembly of the elders, chosen from among the nobles of the nation. This was the meaning borne by the ancient Roman senate, and it was likewise the signification of the Spartan ἀρχοντής. In the old republics, the number of senators always bore a determinate relation to the number of tribes included under the nation. Thus, when Attica was divided into four tribes the number of senators was 400; and when Cleisthenes increased the tribes to ten, he made the number of senators 500. When Rome, in very early times, consisted of but a single tribe, the Roman senate consisted of 100 members; and when, by the addition of the Sabine tribe, the nation became increased, the senate then consisted of 200 members. Again, when the Luceres became incorporated with the Roman state, the Roman senate was increased threefold, and numbered 300. Tarquinius Priscus, who added new senators to the old assembly, distinguished between those of his own formation, and those who had held office before, by designating the former by the appellation of patres minorum gentium. Under Tarquin the Proud, the senate is said to have been greatly diminished by the death and exile which the tyrant sent into their ranks. (See Niebuhr's Hist. of Rome.) The vacancies thus occasioned were subsequently filled up by noble plebeians of the equestrian rank; and hence they bore the designation of conscript fathers, or of patres et conscripti. The numbers being thus raised again to the original 300, the senate remained for many centuries altogether unaltered.

A change of some kind was proposed on the number and the constitution of the senators, by C. S. Gracchus, but of what precise kind does not appear. Under the tribuneship of Livius Drusus, 300 equites were added to the original senate, which swelled out its numbers to 600. This law was abolished, however, by the senate itself on the death of its originator, and its numbers again stood at the old figure of 300. Vacancies occurred during the progress of the civil war between Marius and Sulla; and it is supposed that the latter raised the Roman senate to between 500 and 600. (Cicero ad Att. i. 14). The first of the Caesars raised their number to 900, and exalted to the dignity common soldiers, freedmen, and peregrini. (Suetonius, Caesar, 80.) This opening of the door to the vulgar was imitated after Caesar's death, when the senators seem to have been augmented to the number of 1000. Augustus cleared the senate of these Oriani Senators, as they were called (Suetonius, Aug. 35), and limited their number to 600, which seems to have continued constant during the early centuries of the empire. The number of senators must have been greatly diminished during its latter years. The several periods of the history of Rome afforded progressive changes in the election of persons to the senatorial dignity. It was an old opinion, founded on a passage in Livy (i. 8), and another in Festus (Præteriti Senators), that in the early period of the history of the Roman people, the choice of senators lay exclusively with the kings. Niebuhr (Hist. of Rome, i.) has cast doubt on this belief, without being able to substantiate the conviction to which he adheres—namely, that the populæ was the sole power, who chose kings and senators alike to act as their representatives in the high councils of the nation. Almost all the old authorities adhere to the opinion that the senators were chosen by the sole voice of the king; and their testimony cannot be fairly set aside on such slender evidence as Niebuhr employs. Nothing more is known respecting the time of life at which a man could become a senator during the kingly period than is specified by the title itself (senator, from senex); that is, that he must be advanced in years. A man could not become a senator most probably before the age of thirty-two. The age was finally fixed by Augustus at twenty-five, which seems to have continued the law throughout the entire existence of the empire. The senate itself seems to have had some voice in the election of members to join its body, for we find it raising objections against a person just elected (Dionys. vii. 55). The entire senate was divided into decuries, each of which corresponded to a curia. Originally, when the senate consisted of 100 members, there were in all ten decuries, and one senator chosen from each decury made ten senators, which constituted the decem primi, who represented the ten curies, and who gave their votes first. The principal senator was chosen by the king, and was the first among the decem primi to give his vote.

On the establishment of the republic at Rome, the election of senators, which had hitherto rested with the king, fell to the magistrates, consuls, consular tribunes, and finally to the censors (Livy ii. and Festus, as above). The censors had the sole power to choose or refuse new members to the senate, from among the ex-magistrates, from the institution of the censorship in Rome. We must likewise distinguish between real senators and official senators, or those who merely took their seats in the senate-house, and were permitted to speak but not to vote. These were the persons who held the office of curule magistrate. (Gellius, iii. 18; Festus, Senators). The senate-house was now gradually changing its character into a popular assembly. From the time that the public and private offices of state became equally accessible to plebeians as well as to patricians, the senate gradually changed, until in a short time the dignity was regarded as one that properly belonged to the populæ as cozier. Yet it did not degenerate into a mere democratic gathering; for its members of all classes belonged to the nobiles, whether they were of plebeian or patrician origin. The office of princeps senatus was usually given to the oldest ex-censor, or to any other on whom their electoral regards happened to alight. The fixing of a definite income for senators was limited entirely to the age of the empire. Augustus first laid it down at 400,000 sesterces, and subsequently it rose as high as 1,200,000 sesterces. Those senators who were found deficient, received grants from the emperor, and those who had wasted their estate by vice and prodigality were sternly reminded that their presence could thereafter be dispensed with. No senator was permitted to engage in any mercantile pursuit, although it is plain from what is recorded by Cicero (Verres, v. 18) that this law was often violated. A new element was likewise introduced into the senate by the admission of municipal, colonial, and provincial functionaries. These officials, of course, were required to fix their residence at Rome, or in some part of Italy; and they were not permitted to remove to their native districts without special permission from Augustus, or from the reigning emperor. Regular meetings of the senate took place on the calends, nones, and ides of each month. The right of convocation was limited during the monarchical period to the king or the custos urbis; during the republic it was extended first to the curule magistrates, and subsequently to the tribunes; during the empire it was confined to the emperor, and was likewise dispensed to the consuls, praetors, and tribunes. The places where the senate held their meetings were always opened by the augurs. The most ancient senate-house was the Curia Hostilia; and during the successive changes which the government of the country underwent, it was transferred to different buildings, until at last it was by no means uncommon to find it held in the house of the consul. During the early history of the senate the patriarchal power was quite unlimited, except by the kingly authority; and when a perfect equality came at length to be established between the patricians and the plebeians, the Roman senate witnessed its best days of freedom. Under the despotic government of the emperors, which succeeded, it became the plastic tool of the princeps senatus, who was very commonly the emperor. And not only did the emperor gather up into his own hands all the power formerly possessed by the magistrates, he likewise controlled, in the most absolute and irresponsible manner, all the deliberations and all the determinations of the senate.

Under the palmy days of the Roman senate, that body had the supreme superintendence of everything connected with religion, war, and finance. It decreed to what provinces consuls and praetors were to be sent. It determined what commissioners were to be despatched from Rome to settle the administration of a newly acquired country. It settled all treaties of peace, and other political negotiations, between the parent country and other foreign states. It took special cognizance of all crimes, such as treason, conspiracies, poisoning, and murder. It gave and received the representations of ambassadors, and heard the complaints of subject or of allied nations. In short, everything, whether within or without the republic, of which Rome chose to take cognizance, was committed to the care of the senate. A decree of the senate was called a senatus consultum. When Byzantium was made the second capital of the Roman empire, a second senate was likewise instituted there as well as at Rome, and continued to perform its part in the legislation of the empire down to the ninth century.

The more distinguished badges and privileges enjoyed by the Roman senators were as follows:—The tunica, with a broad purple stripe in front; and a short boot, with the letter C on the front of the foot, supposed to be the initial of the word centum, in allusion to the early senate of Rome, which consisted of 100 members; the right of occupying the orchestra of theatres and amphitheatres; the right of a senatorial feast, when the public sacrifice was offered to Jove in the capitol; and the right of free embassage (libera legatio), made up the whole of the more important benefits enjoyed by the senators of Rome.

SENeca, M. ANXORUS, a famous rhetorician, father of the philosopher. He was born in the old and flourishing colony of Corduba, in Spain, a country which at this time exercised a powerful influence on the politics and literature of Rome. His family was of equestrian rank, and had never attained to any of the curule honours (Tac. Ann.) Whether the gens Annua was of Spanish or Italian origin, and whether the names Annus and Seneca have any connection with the words "annus" and "senex" (as Lipsius thinks), is uncertain. Clinton places the date of Seneca's birth about B.C. 61, as may be inferred from his own statement, that but for the civil wars he might have heard the eloquence of Cicero, who was the only great orator of that day to whom he had not listened. After spending some time at Rome, and making acquaintance with many of his most eminent contemporaries, he returned to Cordova, and married Helvia, a Spanish lady of amiable character and great accomplishments. By her he had three sons, all of whom acquired great celebrity—viz., Novatus, the eldest, who afterwards took the name of Junius Gallicus, and on whom the Christian world has bestowed an unenviable notoriety, by proverbially misapplying an expression of St Luke; Seneca, the philosopher; and Mela, the father of the poet Lucan. After a sojourn in Spain, he once more went to Rome with his family; and no further particulars are known about him, except that he lived in wealth and reputation, probably till the close of the reign of Tiberius.

Parts of two works written by Seneca in his old age are extant—the Controversiae and Suasoriae. Both of them are collections of mere rhetorical exercises; the first on imaginary cases, such as might have occurred in real life; the second on historical events and circumstances in the lives of great men. As literary productions they are nearly worthless, in spite of the author's retentive memory and polished style; they are only valuable as indications of the temper and taste which began to be prevalent in the early days of the empire. The greatest minds, debarred from the real eloquence which is only compatible with political freedom, sought some rest for their wounded spirits in the "resigned yet militant" philosophy of the Porch—a philosophy which, as has been well remarked, "almost enveloped its votaries in an atmosphere of Christianity." But those who, like M. Annus, despised or disliked philosophical pursuits, were forced to take refuge in oratorical pruderies, the practice of which gave them a mechanical facility which they mistook for fluency, and a verbiage which they confounded with eloquence. We have, however, in the elder Seneca, only the germs of that affected style which afterwards characterized the silver age of Roman literature. He is not, indeed, entirely free from the growing degeneracy; but he belonged to another period, and remembered a better taste.

The best edition of the Suasoriae and Controversiae is that of Andr. Schottus, Paris, 1607, which contains all the notes of N. Fabr., Gruter, Lipsius, Opopoecus, &c. (p.w.r.)