Rex
（
βασιλεύς, ἄναξ). A king. I.
Greek.—In the Heroic Age, as depicted in the poems of Homer, the kingly form of
government was universal. The authority of these kings and its limitations were derived not
from any definite scheme or written code, but from the force of traditionary usage and the
natural influence of the circumstances in which the kings were placed, surrounded as they were
by a body of chiefs and nobles, whose power was but little inferior to that of the kings
themselves. Even the title
βασιλῆες is applied to them as
well as to the king. The maintenance of regal authority doubtless depended greatly on the
possession of personal superiority in bravery, military prowess, wisdom in council, and
eloquence in debate. When old age had blunted his powers and activity, a king ran a great
chance of losing his influence. There was, however, an undefined notion of a sort of divine
right connected with the kingly office, whence the epithet
διοτρεφής, so commonly applied to kings in Homer. The characteristic emblem of the
kingly office was the
σκῆπτρον. (See
Sceptrum.) Our information respecting the Grecian kings in the more
historical age is not ample or minute enough to enable us to draw out a detailed scheme of
their functions. Respecting the kings of Sparta the reader is referred to the article
Ephori. As an illustration of the gradual limitation of
the prerogatives of the king or chief magistrate, the reader may consult the article
Archon. The title basileus was sometimes applied to an
officer who discharged the priestly functions of the more ancient kings, as in Athens. See
Archon.
II. Roman.—Rome was originally governed by kings. All
the ancient writers agree in representing the king as elected by the people for life, and as
voluntarily intrusted by them with the supreme power in the State. No reference is made to the
hereditary principle in the election of the first four kings; and it is not until the fifth
king, Tarquinius Priscus, obtained the sovereignty that anything is said about the children of
the deceased king. Since the people had conferred the regal power, it returned to them upon
the death of the king. But as a new king could not be immediately appointed, an Interrex
forthwith stepped into his place. (See
Interreges.) The necessity for an immediate successor to the king arose from the
circumstance that he alone had had the power of taking the
auspicia on
behalf of the State; and as the
auspicia devolved upon the people at his
death, it was imperative upon them to create a magistrate to whom they could delegate the
auspicia, and who would thus possess the power of mediating between the gods
and the State. Originally the peoples consisted only of the
patres or
patricii; and accordingly, on the death of the king, we read
res ad patres redit, or, what is nearly the same thing,
auspicia ad patres redeunt. The Interrex was elected by the whole body of the
patricians, and he appointed (
prodebat) his successor, as it was a rule
that the first Interrex could not hold the Comitia for the election; but it frequently
happened that the second Interrex appointed a third, the third a fourth, and so on, till
the election took place. The Interrex presided over the Comitia Curiata, which were assembled
for the election of the king. The person whom the Senate had selected was proposed by the
Interrex to the people in a regular
rogatio, which the people could only
accept or reject, for they had not the initiative and could not themselves propose any name.
If the people voted in favour of the rogation, they were said
creare
regem, and their acceptance of him was called
iussus populi. But
the king did not immediately enter upon his office. Two other acts had still to take place
before he was invested with the full regal authority and power. First his
inauguratio had to be performed, as it was necessary to obtain the divine will
respecting his appointment by means of the
auspices, since he was the
high-priest of the people. The ceremony was performed by an augur, who conducted the
newly-elected king to the Arx, or citadel, and there placed him on a stone seat with his face
turned to the south, while the people waited below in anxious suspense until the augur
announced that the gods had sent the favourable tokens confirming the king in his priestly
character. The
inauguratio did not confer upon him the
auspicia, for these he obtained by his election to the royal office, as the Comitia
were held
auspicato. The second act which had to be performed was the
conferring of the
imperium upon the king. The
curiae
had only determined by their previous vote who was to be king, and had not by that act
bestowed the necessary power upon him; they had, therefore, to grant him the
imperium by a distinct vote. Accordingly the king himself proposed to the
curiae a
lex curiata de imperio, and the
curiae by voting in favor of it gave him the
imperium. Livy in
his first book makes no mention of the
lex curiata de imperio, but he
uses the expressions
patres auctores fierunt, patres auctores facti; and
these expressions are equivalent to the
lex curiata de imperio in the
kingly period. The king possessed the supreme power in the earliest times, and the Senate and
the Comitia Curiata were very slight checks upon its exercise. In the first place, the king
alone possessed the right of taking the auspices on behalf of the State; and as no public
business of any kind could be performed without the approbation of the gods expressed by the
auspices, the king stood as mediator between the gods and the people, and in an early stage of
society must necessarily have been regarded with religious awe. (See
Augur.) Secondly, the people surrendered to the king the supreme military
and judicial authority by conferring the
imperium upon him. The king was
not only the commander in war, but the supreme judge in peace. Seated on his throne in the
Comitium, he administered justice to all comers, and decided in all cases which were brought
before him, civil as well as criminal. Again, all the magistrates in the kingly period appear
to have been appointed by the king and not elected by the
curiae.
Further, the king was not dependent upon the people for his support; but a large portion of
the public land belonged to him, which was cultivated at the expense of the State on his
behalf. He had also the absolute disposal of the booty taken in war and of the conquered
lands. It must not, however, be supposed that the authority of the king was absolute. The
Senate and the assembly of the people must have formed some check upon his power. But these
were not independent bodies possessing the right of meeting at certain
times and discussing questions of State. They could only be called together when the king
chose, and, further, could only determine upon matters which the king submitted to them. The
only public matter in which the king could not dispense with the coöperation of the
Senate and the
curiae was in declarations of war. There is no trace of
the people having had anything to do with the conclusion of treaties of peace. The insignia of
the king were the
fasces with the axes (
secures),
which twelve lictors carried before him as often as he appeared in public, the
trabea, the
sella curulis, and the
toga
praetexta and
picta. The
trabea appears to
have been the most ancient official dress, and is assigned especially to Romulus: it was of
Latin origin, and is therefore represented by Vergil as worn by the Latin kings. The
toga praetexta and
picta were borrowed, together with
the
sella curulis, from the Etruscans, and their introduction is
variously ascribed to Tullus Hostilius or Tarquinius Priscus.
See Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, ii. pp. 1-17; id.
History of Rome,
i. ch. iv. pp. 66-70; Walter,
Geschichte des röm. Rechts. 17; and
Seeley's introduction to his edition of the first book of Livy.
