In this article I discuss the nature of the early Roman kingship and the institution of the rex sacrorum, by reviewing four recently published papers on the subject. First, I critically consider A. Koptev’s theory that none of the Roman kings was ever an optimo iure rex (i.e. a king provided with both sacral and political functions), because all of them were simply reges sacrorum. Secondly, I address the question of whether the last traditional reges – Tarquinius Priscus, Servius Tullius, and Tarquinius Superbus – were properly kings or magistrates of some kind, as supposed by both M. Humm and F. Glinister. In the last part, I examine C. Goldberg’s view that the rex sacrorum still played a significant role in social and religious life during the 3rd-2nd centuries BCE, despite his political restrictions.
Il rex sacrorum alla luce di alcuni studi recenti
Edoardo Bianchi
2018-01-01
Abstract
In this article I discuss the nature of the early Roman kingship and the institution of the rex sacrorum, by reviewing four recently published papers on the subject. First, I critically consider A. Koptev’s theory that none of the Roman kings was ever an optimo iure rex (i.e. a king provided with both sacral and political functions), because all of them were simply reges sacrorum. Secondly, I address the question of whether the last traditional reges – Tarquinius Priscus, Servius Tullius, and Tarquinius Superbus – were properly kings or magistrates of some kind, as supposed by both M. Humm and F. Glinister. In the last part, I examine C. Goldberg’s view that the rex sacrorum still played a significant role in social and religious life during the 3rd-2nd centuries BCE, despite his political restrictions.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
