[178] Cic. de Rep. ii. 12, 23; Liv. i. 17; Dionys. ii. 57.
[179] [Cic.] ad Brut. i. 5, 4.
[180] Cf. Serv. in Aen. vi. 808 “Romulo mortuo cum ... Senatus ... regnasset per decurias.”
[181] Dionys. ii. 57 διακληρωσάμενοι.
[182] Dionys. ii. 57 τοῖς λαχοῦσι δέκα πρώτοις ἀπέδωκαν ἄρχειν τῆς πόλεως τὴν αὐτόκρατορ’ ἀρχήν: Liv. i. 17 “decem imperitabant, unus cum insignibus imperii et lictoribus erat.”
[183] In the accounts of this procedure an important element is probably omitted, i.e. that each individual interrex nominated his successor. The first could not nominate the king, as he had not received the auspices in due form.
[184] Mommsen (Staatsr. i. pp. 213, 214) takes a different view, arguing that the king was in every case nominated, not by the rex, but by the interrex, on the legal ground that the appointment of a successor would have been one of those “actus legitimi qui non recipiunt diem vel condicionem” (such as hereditatis aditio, tutoris datio), and which “in totum vitiantur per temporis vel condicionis adjectionem” (Papin. in Dig. 50, 17, 77). But, even in the regal period, there may have been one condition which did not vitiate such acts, i.e. death (see p. 29).
[185] Liv. i. 17, 22, 32, 41, 47.
[186] Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 10, 26; ii. 11, 28; ad Fam. i. 9, 25.
[187] Cic. de Rep. ii. 13, 25 “Numam ... qui ... quamquam populus curiatis eum comitiis regem esse jusserat, tamen ipse de suo imperio curiatam legem tulit.”