The shift from the first-person verb (fero - I bring) to the third-person relative clause (quae rex Romulus detraxit - which King Romulus stripped) is a deliberate stylistic choice rooted in Roman religious ritual, legal formula, and epic self-fashioning.

Here is why the person changes in this specific formula:

1. Ritual and Legal Precision

In Roman religious formulas (vota), specificity was crucial to ensure the gods accepted the offering.

• "Fero" (1st Person): Establishes the immediate, living speaker who is performing the physical sacrifice right now.
• "Rex Romulus" (3rd Person): Acts as a legal and historical title. The speaker is not just acting as an individual, but specifically in the role of the supreme military commander fulfilling a precedent established by the first king.

2. The Law of the Spolia Optima

By definition, spolia optima ("supreme spoils") could only be won if a Roman commander defeated the enemy commander in single combat.

• Romulus was the first to do this when he killed King Acron of Caenina.
• By shifting to the third person ("which King Romulus stripped"), the speaker explicitly invokes the ancient legal and historical precedent.
• It frames the current act as an exact duplication of Romulus’s original founding deed.

3. Illocutionary Force and Distancing

Using the third person creates a grand, objective historical framing. Instead of saying "which I stripped as Romulus did," saying "which King Romulus stripped" merges the identity of the current commander with the archetype of Romulus himself. It elevates the modern general from an individual into a living embodiment of Roman myth.

---

To help contextualize this formula further, let me know:

• Is this for an analysis of Livy's history or Propertius's poetry?
• Do you need help translating the entire passage?
• Would you like to explore the three specific historical instances where these spoils were actually won?