INTERREX
INTERREX (in Greek historians,
μεσοβασιλεύς). The fundamental principle of the Roman
constitution was that the people, though sovereign, could only act through
their representatives the magistrates; and hence when the regular magistracy
was through any reason vacant, the political life of the people ceased.
Originally there was but one supreme and responsible magistrate at Rome, the
king holding office for life; and it was to supply the vacancy caused by the
complete cessation of this magistrate's functions that the
interrex was instituted. The interregnum had a long
history in the Roman state, and was one of the most distinct survivals of
the early regal constitution. It dates, tradition tells us, from the
earliest transmission of the supreme power, and the last recorded demand for
the office was in 43 B.C., on the death of the two
consuls for the year (
D. C. 46.45). As an
institution it finds no parallel in governments outside Italy (
Cic. de Repub. 2.12, 23,
“prudentes illi principes novam et inauditam ceteris gentibus
interregni ineundi rationem excogitaverunt” ); but that, like the
monarchy, it was not a purely Roman but an essentially Latin institution is
shown by its presence, in the constitution of the Italian municipia
(
C. I. L. 9.1635, 10.6232; Mommsen,
Staatsr. 1.647, n. 3). Since the interrex was, through the
vacancy of the supreme office, the sole representative of the people, he is
not a delegate in the sense in which the
praefectus
urbi was, who was merely the king's representative, nor yet in the
sense in which the proconsul was during the Republic, when strictly
delegated authority was not permitted within the walls. He is not
pro magistratu, but
magistratus, and still continued to be a magistrate under the
Republic in spite of the fact that he was not elected by the people. For the
interrex was a survival, and dates back to a period when popular election
was unknown; although, if we exclude popular election from the original
regal constitution, the position of the interrex in this period is extremely
doubtful. The question raised is, whether the interrex was merely an
occasional institution in the regal period, as in the Republic, employed
only where the regular transmission of the regal office had been interrupted
through exceptional circumstances, or whether, as represented by our
authorities, it was a standing part of the procedure in the appointment of a
king. The question is, therefore, whether the king of Rome was usually
nominated by his predecessor, recourse being had to an interregnum only in
exceptional cases, or whether he was nominated in every case by the
interrex. The former view would, on the whole, seem most natural, and, if we
refuse to attribute popular election to the regal period, is the one most
usually held [
REX]; but there is
one serious objection that has been brought against it,--namely, that
nomination of the future king during the lifetime of his predecessor would
be a breach of the Roman legal principle that no formal act can be
conditioned by time or other circumstances (Mommsen,
Staatsr.
1.214). The appointment of a successor would certainly belong to those
“actus legitimi qui non recipiunt diem vel condicionem,”
under which fall the
hereditatis aditio and the
datio tutoris, and which “in totum
vitiantur per temporis vel condicionis adjectionem” (
Dig. 50,
17,
77). Mommsen concludes, therefore, that the king was
in every case nominated, not through the rex, but through the interrex
(
Staatsr. 1.213, 214), and that the interregnum as a part
of the standing procedure of the Roman commonwealth ceased when the election
of successors by those in office was permitted in the supreme magistracy, as
it was on the institution of the consulate. It then became only an
occasional office, necessarily resorted to where there were no supreme
magistrates of Rome, and no one duly qualified to hold the election for
their successors. In the case of the death of both the consuls, or of a
complete vacancy in the office through any impediment to the elections, this
state of things was realised. The praetor, though technically a colleague of
the consul, could not hold the consular elections (
Cic. Att. 9.9,
3, “in
libris habemus non modo consules a praetore sed ne praetores quidem
creari Jus esse” ) ; and consequently, on the vacancy of the
consular office, recourse was had to an interregnum.
The conditions of an
interregnums are fully expressed
by Cicero (
de Leg. 3.3, 9), in the words “ast quando
consulari potestate magistratus magisterve populi (i.e. dictator) nec
erunt,
reliqui magistratus ne sunto, auspicia patrum
sunto, ollique ex se produnto qui comitiatu consules rite
creare possit.” The condition “reliqui magistratus ne
sunto” refers to the
[p. 1.1022]patrician
magistracies, as they were called; that is, to the
magistratus populi, but not to the
magistratus plebeii, which represented only a part of the
community. This condition is fully explained by the original position of the
interrex. He was then appointed by the senate, when the auspices had lapsed
to the
patres through the vacancy of the
regular patrician magistracy (
auspicia ad patres
redeunt); and in republican times the auspices could not return to
the patres, as long as they were held, whether as
majora or
minora auspicia (Messala ap.
Gel. 13.15,
4),
by patrician magistrates (Ps.-
Cic. ad Brut.
1.5,
4, “dum unus erit
patricius magistratus, auspicia ad patres redire non possunt” );
and consequently the retirement of all the patrician magistrates was a
necessary preliminary to the introduction of an interrex (
Dionys. A. R. 8.90,
ἀποδείκνυται μεσοβασιλεύς, αἱ δὲ ἄλλαι κατελύθησαν
ἀρχαί). When a sudden occasion arose for the appointment of an
interrex, it was the duty of the senate to give notice to the patrician
magistrates and request them to retire from office. In the year 43 B.C., when the death of the two consuls Hirtius
and Tansa rendered an interregnum necessary, the absence of many of the
patrician magistrates from Rome rendered it impossible for this
communication to be made in time; the interregnum was thus rendered
impossible, and the extraordinary measure was resorted to of appointing two
privati with
consularis
potestas to hold the election for the consulship (
D. C. 46.45). The resignation of plebeian
magistrates was not required, and it was apparently not necessary for
delegates such as the proconsuls to lay down their commands, since they were
not
magistratus (Mommsen,
Staatsr. 632, n. 4).
The interregnum is said by tradition to have dated from the first vacancy of
the regal officer, after the death of Romulus (
Cic.
de Rep. 2.1. 2;
Liv.
1.17;
Dionys. A. R. 2.57; Suidas,
s. v.
μεσοβασιλεύς). With the vacancy in
the sole magistracy, the auspices under which the state had been founded and
which were the mark of divine acceptance of the kingly rule, returned to the
patres; that is, in the regal period, to
the patrician senate. The first interregnum was an exercise of collective
rule by the senate, which however, on the model of the kingly rule, took the
form of the creation of a succession of interreges. The accounts of this
system given by our two chief authorities, Livy and Dionysius, do not quite
correspond; but the general principle was that the senate was divided into
decuries (Serv.
in Aen. 6.809, “Romulo
mortuo cum senatus
regnaret per
decurias” ): each decury having fifty days' government
allotted to it, within which period each individual of the decury exercised
rule for five days. The succession of the decuries was determined by
sortitio according to Dionysius (
2.57,
διακληρωσάμενοι); and both Livy and Dionysius represent the
rule as being based on the collegiate principle, the whole decury possessing
the imperium (Dionys. ib.
τοῖς λαχοῦσι δέκα
πρώτοις ἀπέδωκαν ἄρχειν τῆς πόλεως τὴν αὐτοκράτορ᾽
ἀρχήν), while the one who ruled for five days had the fasces and
all the external symbols of the regal power (Dionys.
ib.;
Liv. 1.17, “decem imperitabant, unus cum
insignibus imperii et lictoribus erat” ). There are many points
in this system which were not observed in republican times; the collegiate
system disappeared, and no portion of the body qualified to appoint an
interrex became his colleague or shared his imperium. Again the
sortitio had disappeared as a means of appointing
the interrex, and
comparatio which took the
form of election had superseded it (
Liv. 5.31,
8, “interrex creatus M. Furius
Camillus;” App.
Civ. Bell. 1.98,
τῇ βουλῇ προσέταξεν ἑλέσθαι τὸν καλούμενον μεταξὺ
βασιλέα). The first interrex was elected in republican times, and
he nominated his successor, as the consul nominated the dictator, each
successive interrex holding office for five days. There was no definite
limit for the number of interreges that might be nominated in succession.
The number that succeeded one another during a single interregnum varies
from the mininum of two (
Liv. 6.1,
8) to the known maximum of fourteen (
Liv. 8.23,
17), and
possibly in one case reached a still higher number (Mommsen,
Staatsr. 1.658, n. 4); the only fixed rule being that there
must be at least two interreges, the first interrex being incapable of
holding the consular elections, probably because he was regarded as having
received the auspices irregularly. The technical expression for the
appointment of an interrex is
prodere interregem
(
Liv. 6.41, “sed nos quoque ipsi sine
suffragio populi auspicato interregem prodamus” ); and this
expression refers, in republican times, not only to the appointment of the
first interrex by election, but to the nomination of each of the other
interreges by his predecessor (
Liv. 5.31,
8). The existence of an
interregnum and the creation of an individual
interrex are not always identical. The interregnum
often lasted some days before a special interrex was appointed, as in the
year 52 B.C., in which fully twenty-one days
elapsed before an interrex was elected (Mommsen,
Staatsr.
654, n. 4). But during this period the supreme authority had not lapsed, it
was only dormant; the auspices were in the hands of those members of the
state who in republican times were qualified to appoint an interrex: and who
these members were remains to be considered.
On the one hand, we are told that the interrex could only be chosen by
patricians (
Cic. pro Dom. 14,
38, “a patricio prodi necesse est;”
Liv. 3.40, “patricios coire ad prodendum
interregem” ); on the other hand, we find that the republican
senate, which was not exclusively patrician, was sometimes bidden to appoint
an interrex (App.
l.c.,
τῇ βουλῇ προσέταξεν ἑλέσθαι κ. τ.
λ.). There is no doubt, however, that in strict law the republican
senate as such had nothing to do with the appointment of an interrex; in the
early Republic their active existence ceased with the interregnum, since,
before the tribune gained the right of transacting business with the senate,
there was no magistrate who could consult them. They might, however, in the
later Republic, suggest that the
patricii
should meet for the appointment of an interrex, the tribune, no doubt,
putting the question. This probably became their duty, so that the patricii
felt no obligation to meet except on the suggestion of the senate; and it is
on a senatusconsultum of this kind that the tribune's veto might be put
(Ascon.
in Milon. p. 32, “dum Pompeius et
T. Munatius tribunus plebis referri ad senatum
de
patriciis convocandis qui
[p. 1.1023]interregem proderent non essent passi” ). Who these
patricii were that met to appoint the interrex, and
how they assembled, has been a matter of much dispute. One view that has
been advanced is that they were the members of the Comitia Curiata, but this
is rendered untenable through its having been shown that this was not a
purely patrician assembly; another is that they were the
patres familiarum patriciarum gentium assembled in the
concilium populi; but the most probable
view is that of Mommsen, that they were the patrician members of the senate,
who met for this purpose (
Staatsr. 1.654). This is most in
accordance with the traditions of the regal period, which limits the
interregnum to the patrician senate (
Dionys. A.
R. 2.57,
τῶν πατρικίων οἱ καταγραφέντες
εἰς τὴν βουλήν). Two necessary qualifications of the
interrex were that he should be a patrician (
Cic.
pro Dom. 14, 38) and a senator. The list of
the known interreges shows that these were always senators, and in this
respect the original idea of the interregnum as an intermediate senatorial
rule was upheld. From this list it also appears that out of the thirty-five
known interreges, thirty-three are known to have held curule office, while
the remaining two probably had. Hence Willems concludes that past curule
office was a necessary qualification for an interrex: that they were chosen,
therefore, from the
senatores curules patricii,
the
senatores patricii pedarii being excluded
(Willems,
Le Sénat de la République
romaine, ii. pp. 14, 16). It seems further shown from the names we
have that for the nomination of the successive interreges neither the
sortitio nor an appeal to the
ordo senatorius was employed, and that the interrex
was free in nominating his successor, provided the above-mentioned
qualifications were observed; although this does not prevent us from
supposing that the succession of interreges was arranged beforehand, and
that it was not wholly unknown whom the interrex for the time being would
nominate as his successor (ib. p. 16).
The interrex was, as already stated, a magistrate, and before the institution
of the plebeian offices a sole magistrate, the principle of colleagueship
being absent from the institution as known to us under the Republic.
Originally during his short tenure of office he must have consulted the
senate and administered the state; but when the tribunes obtained the
Jus agendi cum patribus, the necessity for
the former duty was dispensed with, and the chief object of the interregnum
came to be that the Comitia Centuriata might be consulted as to the
appointment of a consul. He need not apparently have taken the oath of
office, which was not due till five days after entrance, and the interrex's
tenure of office terminated with this period (
App.
BC 1.20; Mommsen,
Staatsr. 1.660). With the
creation of the supreme patrician office--that is, with the election of a
single consul--the existence of the interregnum necessarily terminated and
the interrex retired. (Mommsen,
Römische
Staatsrecht, 1.647-660; Willems,
Le Sénat de la
République romaine, ii. pp. 7-31.)
[
A.H.G]
