THE MONARCHY.] ROME 733 resembling those of the heroic kings of Greece. He rules for life, and he is the sole ruler, unfettered by written statutes. He is the supreme judge, settling all disputes and punishing wrongdoers even with death. All other officials are appointed by him. He imposes taxes, dis- tributes lands, and erects buildings. Senate and assembly meet only when he convenes them, and meet for little else than to receive communications from him. In war he is absolute leader, 1 and finally he is also the religious head of the community. It is his business to consult the gods on its behalf, to offer the solemn sacrifices, and to announce the days of the public festivals. Hard by his house was the common hearth of the state, where the vestal virgins cherished the sacred fire. By the side of the king stood the senate, or council of elders. In the descriptions left us of the primitive senate, as in those of the " rex," we can discover traces of a transition from an earlier state of things when Rome was only an assemblage of clans or village communities, allied indeed, but each still ruled by its own chiefs and headmen, to one in which these groups have been fused into a single state under a common ruler. On the one hand the senate appears as a representative council of chiefs, with inalien- able prerogatives of its own, and claiming to be the ultimate depository of the supreme authority and of the " sacra " connected with it. The senators are the " patres "; they are taken from the leading " gentes " ; they hold their seats for life ; to them the " auspicia " revert on the death of a king ; they appoint the interrex from their own body, are consulted in the choice of the new king, 2 and their sanction is necessary to ratify the vote of the assembled freemen. On the other hand they are no longer supreme. They cannot appoint a king but with the consent of the community, and their relation to the king when appointed is one of subordination. Vacancies in their ranks are filled up by him, and they can but give him advice and counsel when he chooses to consult them. The popular assembly of united Rome in its earliest days was that in which the freemen met and voted by their curiae (comitia curiata 3 ). The assembly met in the comitium at the north-east end of the forum, 4 at the summons and under the presidency of the king or, failing him, of the " interrex." By the " rex " or " interrex " the question was put, and the voting took place "curiatim," the curiae being called up in turn. The vote of each curia was decided by the majority of indivi- dual votes, and a majority of the votes of the curiae determined the final result. But the occasions on which the assembly could exercise its power must have been few. Their right to elect magistrates was apparently limited to the acceptance or rejection of the king proposed by the interrex. Of the passing of laws, in the later sense of the term, there is no trace in the kingly period. Dionysius's statement 5 that they voted on questions of war and peace is improbable in itself and unsupported by tradition. They are indeed represented, in one instance, as deciding a capital case, but it is by the express permis- sion of the king and not of right. 6 Assemblies of the people were also, and probably more frequently, convened for other purposes. Not only did they meet to hear from the king the announcement of the high days and holidays for each month, and to witness such solemn religious rites as the inauguration of a priest, but their presence (and 1 For the references, see Schwegler, i. 646 sq. " If the analogy of the " rex sacrorum" is to be trusted, the "king " could only be chosen from the ranks of the "patricii." Cic. Pro Domo, 14 ; Gaius, i. 122. 3 Cic. De Rep., ii. 13 ; Dionys., ii. 14, &c. 4 Varro, L. L., v. 155. For the position of the "comitium," see Smith, Diet. Geog., s.v. "Roma," and Jordan, Topog. d. Stadt Rom. 5 Dionys., I.e. 6 Livy, i. 26; Dionys., Hi. 22. sometimes their vote) was further required to authorize and attest certain acts, which in a later age assumed a more private character. The disposal of property by will 7 and the solemn renunciation of family or gentile "sacra" 8 could only take place in the presence of the assembled freemen, while for adoption 9 (arrogatio) not only their presence bat their formal consent was necessary. Such in outline was the political structure of the Roman state at the earliest period known to us. It is clear that it belongs to a comparatively advanced stage in the development of society, and that a long previous history lies behind it. Traces of an older and more primitive order of things still linger in the three ancient shadowy tribes, in the curia? and gentes, in many of the features noticeable in the senate ; but they are traces of an order that has passed away. The supremacy of the state is established over the groups out of whose fusion it has grown, and such of these groups as still retain a distinct existence are merely private corporations. Private differ- ences are settled and wrongdoers punished by the state tribunals, and even within the close limits of the family the authority of the head is limited by the claims of the state upon the services of the sons and dependants. A history of this early Roman state is out of the ques- Rome tion. The names, dates, and achievements of the first under four kings are all too unsubstantial to form the basis of a sober narrative ; 10 a few points only can be considered as fairly well established. If we except the long eventless reign ascribed to King Numa, tradition represents the first kings as incessantly at war with their immediate neigh- bours. The details of these wars are no doubt mythical ; but the implied condition of continual struggle, and the narrow range within which the struggle is confined, may be accepted as true. The picture drawn is that of a small community with a few square miles of territory, at deadly feud with its nearest neighbours, within a radius of some 12 miles round Rome. Nor, in spite of the repeated victories with which tradition credits Romulus, Ancus, and Tullus, does there seem to have been any real extension of Roman territory except towards the sea. Fidense remains Etruscan ; the Sabines con- tinue masters up to the Anio ; Praeneste, Gabii, and Tusculum are still untouched ; and on this side it is doubt- ful if Roman territory, in spite of the possible destruction of Alba, extended to a greater distance than the sixth milestone from Rome. 11 But along the course of the Tiber below the city there was a decided advance. The fortifi- cation of the Janiculum, the building of the "pons sublicius," the foundation of Ostia, and the acquisition of the saltworks near the sea may all be safely ascribed to this early period. Closely connected, too, with the control of the Tiber from Rome to the sea was the subjugation of the petty Latin communities lying south of the river ; and the tradition of the conquest and destruction of Poli- torium, Tellense, and Ficana is confirmed by the absence in historical times of any Latin communities in this district. With the reign of the- fifth king Tarquinius Priscus a The marked change takes place. The traditional accounts of Tarquins. the last three kings not only wear a more historical air 7 Gaius, ii. 101. 8 Cell., xv. 27. 9 Gell., v. 19, "Comitia praebentur, quae curiata appellantur. " Cf. Cic. Pro Domo, 13, 14 ; and see ROMAN LAW. 10 By far the most complete criticism of the traditional accounts of the first four kings will be fo-.mcl in Schwegler's Rom. Geschichte, vol. i. ; compare also lime's Early Rome, and Sir G. C. Lewis's Credibility of Early Roman History. 11 The "fossa Cluilia," 5 miles from Rome (Livy, ii. 39), is regarded by Schwegler (i. 585) and by Mommseu (i. 45) as marking the Roman frontier towards Latium. Cf. Ovid., Fast., ii. 681; Strabo, 230, ")ueTa|u yovv TOV W/UITTOI/ Kal TOV fKrov iOov . . . ^ffffToi . . . uptov TTJS Tcfre 'Pca/jLatcav yrjs.
