Republics in Ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.–500 B.C. c7.141

c7.141

The constitution of the Greek *gerontes* and the Roman *patres-familias* highly favours our view that the *viś* in its political aspect was a body composed of the heads of families of the political community. Such a similarity of composition in the institutions of the early Indo-European peoples is not surprising. But the position and function of the three bodies appear to be widely different. In Homeric Greece the king consulted the *gerousia* of his own accord and to an extent also following the tribal custom, but he did not owe his position to it. In Rome the *patres-familias*, or representatives of the burgesses, elected the *rex* who, after his election to kingship, became "the supreme judge, the high-priest, and the commander-in-chief in war." In T. M. Taylor's opinion "he was a simple Roman burgess chosen by his peers to fill the position of their leader; but after election they owed him allegiance just as much as if he ruled by right of divine descent. He held in his hands the full *Imperium* or Command of the State, both in peace and war; the power that had made him king *could not constitutionally depose him if he abused his trust*;⁴ he was supreme for life and there were no legal checks upon his powers of administration.”¹ On the contrary the Indian *viś* reserved the right to banish a king. The reasons for banishment are not clear from the texts and even after his appointment he was not “the supreme judge, the high-priest,” though he probably was the commander of the armies.