Expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome

It was in this latter way that the monarchy was terminated in Rome.  For however much the history of the expulsion of the last Tarquinius, “the proud,” may have been interwoven with anecdotes and spun out into a romance, it is not in its leading outlines to be called in question.  Tradition credibly enough indicates as the causes of the revolt, that the king neglected to consult the senate and to complete its numbers; that he pronounced sentences of capital punishment and confiscation without advising with his counsellors; that he accumulated immense stores of grain in his granaries, and exacted from the burgesses military labour and task-work beyond what was due.  The exasperation of the people is attested by the formal vow which they made man by man for themselves and for their posterity that thenceforth they would never tolerate a king; by the blind hatred with which the name of king was ever afterwards regarded in Rome; and above all by the enactment that the “king for offering sacrifice” (-rex sacrorum- or -sacrificulus-) —­whom they considered it their duty to create that the gods might not miss their accustomed mediator—­should be disqualified from holding any further office, so that this man became the foremost indeed, but also the most powerless in the Roman commonwealth.  Along with the last king all the members of his clan were banished—­a proof how close at that time gentile ties still were.  The Tarquinii thereupon transferred themselves to Caere, perhaps their ancient home,(1) where their family tomb has recently been discovered.  In the room of the one president holding office for life two annual rulers were now placed at the head of the Roman community.

This is all that can be looked upon as historically certain in reference to this important event.(2) It is conceivable that in a great community with extensive dominion like the Roman the royal power, particularly if it had been in the same family for several generations, would be more capable of resistance, and the struggle would thus be keener, than in the smaller states; but there is no certain indication of any interference by foreign states in the struggle.  The great war with Etruria—­which possibly, moreover, has been placed so close upon the expulsion of the Tarquins only in consequence of chronological confusion in the Roman annals—­cannot be regarded as an intervention of Etruria in favour of a countryman who had been injured in Rome, for the very sufficient reason that the Etruscans notwithstanding their complete victory neither restored the Roman monarchy, nor even brought back the Tarquinian family.

Powers of the Consuls

If we are left in ignorance of the historical connections of this important event, we are fortunately in possession of clearer light as to the nature of the change which was made in the constitution.  The royal power was by no means abolished, as is shown by the very fact that, when a vacancy occurred afterwards as before, an “interim king” (-interrex-) was nominated.  The one life-king was simply replaced by two year-kings, who called themselves generals (-praetores-), or judges (-iudices-), or merely colleagues (consules).(3) The principles of collegiate tenure and of annual duration are those which distinguish the republic from the monarchy, and they first meet us here.