arms. There can be no doubt that the Sabines were
originally the ruling people, but that in some insurrection of the
Romans various Sabine places, such as Antemnae, Fidenae, and others, were
subdued, and thus these Sabines were separated from their kinsmen. The
Romans, therefore, reestablished their independence by a war, the result
of which may have been such as we read it in the tradition--Romulus
being, of course, set aside--namely, that both places as two closely
united towns formed a kind of confederacy, each with a senate of one
hundred members, a king, an offensive and defensive alliance, and on the
understanding that in common deliberations the burghers of each should
meet together in the space between the two towns which was afterward
called the _comitium_. In this manner they formed a united state in
regard to foreign nations.

The idea of a double state was not unknown to the ancient writers
themselves, although the indications of it are preserved only in
scattered passages, especially in the scholiasts. The head of Janus,
which in the earliest times was represented on the Roman _as_, is the
symbol of it, as has been correctly observed by writers on Roman
antiquities. The vacant throne by the side of the _curule_ chair of
Romulus points to the time when there was only one king, and represents
the equal but quiescent right of the other people.

That concord was not of long duration is an historical fact likewise;
nor can it be doubted that the Roman king assumed the supremacy over the
Sabines, and that in consequence the two councils were united so as to
form one senate under one king, it being agreed that the king should be
alternately a Roman and a Sabine, and that each time he should be chosen
by the other people: the king, however, if displeasing to the
non-electing people, was not to be forced upon them, but was to be
invested with the _imperium_ only on condition of the auguries being
favorable to him, and of his being sanctioned by the whole nation. The
non-electing tribe accordingly had the right of either sanctioning or
rejecting his election. In the case of Numa this is related as a fact,
but it is only a disguisement of the right derived from the ritual
books. In this manner the strange double election, which is otherwise so
mysterious and was formerly completely misunderstood, becomes quite
intelligible. One portion of the nation elected and the other
sanctioned; it being intended that, for examp