No one power could ever gain the entire ascendency; and thus, as all _monarchism_ seemed excluded from their system, they called it a republic.

Caesar, however, had now concentrated in himself all the principal elements of power, and there began to be suspicions that he wished to make himself in name and openly, as well as secretly and in fact, a king.
[Sidenote: Roman repugnance to royalty.] [Sidenote: Firmness of the Romans.] The Romans abhorred the very name of king.

They had had kings in the early periods of their history, but they made themselves odious by their pride and their oppressions, and the people had deposed and expelled them.

The modern nations of Europe have several times performed the same exploit, but they have generally felt unprotected and ill at ease without a personal sovereign over them and have accordingly, in most cases, after a few years, restored some branch of the expelled dynasty to the throne The Romans were more persevering and firm.

They had managed their empire now for five hundred years as a republic, and though they had had internal dissensions, conflicts, and quarrels without end, had persisted so firmly and unanimously in their detestation of all regal authority, that no one of the long line of ambitious and powerful statesmen, generals, or conquerors by which the history of the empire had been signalized, had ever dared to aspire to the name of king.
[Sidenote: Caesar's ambitious plans.] There began, however, soon to appear some indications that Caesar, who certainly now possessed regal power, would like the regal name.
Ambitious men, in such cases, do not directly assume themselves the titles and symbols of royalty.