De Collatini Nomine

In this senate we have heard the names of Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, the first two consuls of the Roman Republic. We here are debating the fate of this Brutus’ grandson, but I wish to talk of the other consul in those early days, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus. In doing so I also hope to show you all the utter revulsion that your ancestors had toward the title king.

Once Tarquinius Superbus had been expelled, an oath was taken that the Roman people would never allow anyone to be king, nor anyone to be in Rome who might be a danger to freedom. Yet the people found a Tarquin again in a position of power. Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus was a nephew of Superbus, but held no desires to become king. Though in the position of consul, he had no love of kings, mindful of the violence done to his wife Lucretia by his cousin Sextus. But he retained the name of Tarquin, not by choice, but by birth, and the people of Rome found that name utterly detestable. The people of Rome, his co-consul, and his father-in-law all asked Collatinus to remove himself from Rome.

Though a friend to the whole city, Collatinus left Rome, rather than allow his presence there bring danger upon the Republic, of which he could truly be called “father”. The people understood Collatinus’ honest nature, but also the danger that his name possessed. And so, for the welfare of the newly founded Republic, they exiled a man who didn’t have the ambition to be king, but only the name.

If the people of Rome could not endure such a man, how could it endure a man who did not yet possess the name, but was filled with the ambition? If we are to judge Caesar by the honors and titles he possessed, we should also consider what type of character led him to actually accept these titles. Is there any honor he did not accept; did he show any restraint when gleefully lengthening his name? Did he show himself conscious of the respect due the Senate and the Republic when he claimed that the Senate was nothing, “a mere name without body or form”? Did he show proper propriety when he threatened us to consider his words as law? I have already discussed the removed crown that he so deeply mourned, and his actions during the Lupercalia. But what of his campaign against Parthia, which the omens state may only be conquered by a king? Would Caesar have left upon his campaign without assuring his success, and not urge Lucius Cotta to recommend the title of “REX ROMANORUM” be added to his already burdensome name?  Through his actions Caesar proclaimed his desire for the throne – but I misspeak. He had already commanded that a golden throne be set up in the Curia, and that his statue be added among those of the Roman Kings. It was apparent that Caesar, though he lacked the name itself, still sought the power of a king.
In such a situation, is there any doubt how the first Republicans would have acted?