ABSTRACT
Our knowledge of the form and development of the Roman system of govemment during the early years of the Republic is incomplete due to the scarcity of authentie records and the gaps in the ancient historical sourees. According to a widely accepted view, put forward by the German historian Theodor Mommsen, after the fall of the Monarchy the power of the king was transferred to two supreme magistrates who acted as heads of state, whilst the senate continued to function as a mainly advisory body.l Another theory claims that the govemment ofthe infant Republic was most likely in the hands of the senate, out of whose ranks one or more functionaries were appointed, whenever the need arose, to deal with urgent matters of the state.2 This view draws support from the fact that, as regards the earlier phase of the Republic, the sources speak of different colleges of magistrates (prae tores , iudices, consules, decemviri legibus scribundis, tribuni militium consulari potestate), as being entrusted with a variety of political, judicial and military tasks. During this period, the chief magistrates were referred to as praetores.3 Later, probably after the introduction ofthe leges Liciniae Sextiae (367 BC), they began to be called
T. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht I, Leipzig 1887, repr. Graz 1971. See also H. F. Jolowicz and B. Nicholas, Historicallntroduction to the Study of Roman Law, 3rd edn, Cambridge 1972, 8. W. Kunkel, An lntroduction to Roman Legal and Constitutional History, 3rd edn, Oxford 1973, 14-15; F. Wieacker, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, Munich 1988, 223-224. Quod populo praeirent: those who lead the people. The praetores were headed by apraetor maximus. See Livy 7.3.5. It should be noted here that in Etruscan cities, after the expulsion of the kings (lucumones), power was transferred to magistrates called zilath, a title translated in Latin as praetor. The head of this body of magistrates was referred to as zilath purthna, a titIe corresponding to that of the Roman praetor maximus .
