Here, then, the executive power had to be in some degree restricted; and the way in which the Roman aristocracy contrived this is most curious and interesting. They could not part with the imperium they had created. Like the patria potestas of their home life, it had come to be a part of their mental furniture as social beings; and more than this, to abolish anything was all but impossible to the Roman mind. Institutions might grow, change, decay, fall into desuetude, or become mere forms; but as descended from the fathers of the State they could not be wholly done away with. They had once been useful, and might in some way be useful again. To those familiar with Roman history many examples will occur of this peculiar tenacity of conservatism; but the change from monarchy to aristocracy in 509 B.C. is the first and perhaps the most striking.
The imperium of the Rex was not abolished. His title only, and some of his insignia, disappeared from the political system. From religious observance, however, it was not possible wholly to sever the title of the priest-king, or the relations of the State to the gods might be compromised. A Rex, who resided in the king's house (regia), continued to perform the kingly sacrifices, and held the first place on certain formal occasions among all the Roman priests, but he had no imperium, and was disqualified from holding any civil office.[1] The imperium, however, remained, but it was now
- ↑ For the survival of the title also in the form interrex, see the last edition of Smith's Dict. of Antiquities, s.v.
