The king

According to Roman historical tradition, during the first two and a half centuries after the founding of the city Rome had been governed by a succession of seven kings.^{^[143]} Of these the first four (Romulus, Numa Pompilius, Tullius Hostilius and Ancus Marcius) are believed to have been of Latin or Sabine origin, whilst the last three (Tarquinius Priscus, Servius Tullius and Tarquinius Superbus) were Etruscans.^{^[144]} Roman kingship, especially during the earlier phase of the regal era, was closely associated with religion.

As the chief priest of the state, the king (rex) acted as an intermediary between the community and its gods and exercised general supervision over all matters relating to public worship. But the Roman kings, although they were often attributed magic powers, did not profess to be of divine descent, nor did they claim any special connection with the gods other than through the taking of the auspices. Moreover, many religious ceremonies and rituals were conducted not by the king himself but by special officiators and priests acting under the king's authority.^{^[145]}Besides his purely religious duties, the king was responsible for the maintenance of public peace and had the power to issue decrees and inflict punishment for offences against the gods or the state. He was also in charge of the state's foreign affairs and could declare war on or conclude treaties with other states in the name of the community. In times of war, as commander-in-chief of the army, he called the people to arms and led them in the battlefield. Moreover, only he had the right to convene and address the assembly of the people and the senate and to put proposals before them. Thus, although in principle legislative power rested with the Roman

54 The Historical and Institutional Context of Roman Law people, the king exercised a strong influence on legislation by virtue of his exclusive right to propose laws.^{^[146]} The royal power seems to have increased considerably under Etruscan influence with the introduction of the principle of imperium, or supreme command.^{^[147]} But the king's power was not absolute, for its exercise was tempered by custom and public opinion (expressed through the assembly of the people and the senate).

With respect to the administration of justice, the king had jurisdiction over matters of both public and private law.

With regard to the latter, however, his authority was limited by established customary norms and the coexisting jurisdiction of the pater familias over the affairs of his household. In general, it seems that the king rarely interfered in private disputes and, when his intervention was deemed necessary, he confined himself to pronouncing the general norm pertinent to the matter at stake, leaving the case to be determined by regular judges or specially appointed arbiters (arbitri)?^{^[148]} But in relation to the administration of public law he had much wider jurisdiction. As protector of the community's interests, he acted as supreme judge in criminal trials concerned with various offences against the state and its gods, such as treason, sacrilege and unjustifiable homicide.^{^[149]}[150][151] But when an important case was brought before him for trial it was customary for him to seek the advice of the senate (regium consilium)?¹ Moreover, the king did not always try capital or other important cases in person; he could, if he so wished, delegate a case to specially appointed officials. These were termed quaestores parricidii, when dealing with charges of murder (parricidium), and duoviri perduellionis, when dealing with charges of treason (perduellio)?*

According to Cicero, a citizen sentenced to death or some other form of capital punishment (poena capitalis), such as loss of liberty or citizenship, could appeal against the sentence to the assembly of the people (provocatio ad populum). The latter could suspend the sentence, but could not re-try the case. In the course of time, the right of appealing to the people against decisions of magistrates involving capital punishment came to be regarded as one of the most important rights associated with Roman citizenship (ius provocationis).

The Roman kings were not hereditary but elective and, although they held office for life, they could not nominate their successors.

The person who was to serve as king was chosen from among the heads of Rome's noble families through a process in which both the senate and the assembly of the people played a part. Upon the death of a king supreme power (summa potestas, imperium) passed to the senate, which appointed one of its members as a temporary king, or interrex. The interrex was entrusted with the duties of the regal office. He also nominated the new king (usually with the senate's consent) and supervised the procedure leading to his confirmation. Depending on the time required for deliberation, up to ten interreges might be appointed in succession, each interrex remaining in office for up to five days. The person nominated as a king by the interrex was presented to the curiate assembly for confirmation and, if he was approved by the people, was elected king.^{^[152]}[153] But the election of a king was not complete before the end of the religious rituals through which the gods' approval of the new king was ascertained (inauguratio). ^{^[154]} Shortly after his election the king re-convened the assembly and proposed a special law, known as lex curiata de imperio,^{^[155]} by which the people conferred upon him supreme authority (regium imperium, regia potestas) and the right of taking the auspices (auspicia) - a right associated with the king's role as the community's chief priest. With the passing of this law and the ratification of the people's decision by the senate (patrum auctoritas) the whole process came to an end.^{^[156]}

<< | >>

↑

Source: Mousourakis George. The Historical and Institutional Context of Roman Law. Routledge,2003. — 480 p.. 2003

The king

More on the topic The king: