This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
1 The hundredth year. 138 years had elapsed since the death of Romulus: they diminish the number of years designedly, to make the matter appear still worse.
2 Son-in-law. Why not one of his two sons, Lucius and Aruns? Dio. iv. 1. If these were not his grandchildren rather, they must have been infants at the time. Dio. iv. 4, 6. —At this time infants could not succeed to the throne. —Ruperti.
3 This sentence has given some trouble to the commentators. —Some will have it that three distinct reasons are given for assassinating Tarquinius rather than Servius Tullius, and that these are severally marked and distinguished by et —et —trum, the second only having quia. —Stroth will have it that only two reasons are assigned, one, why the king should be killed, and the other, why Servius Tullius should not be killed, arising from the danger and uselessness of the act —the former has not a quia, because it was a fact, (et injuriae dolor, &c.,) while the latter has it in the first part (the danger, et quia gravior, &c., quia being understood also before the other, the uselessness, turn, Servio occiso, &c.) because it contained the reasoning of the youths. Doering says there were only two powerful reasons, revenge and fear, and a ratio probabilis introduced by tum; which has the force of insuper. According to Dr. Hunter, there are two formal assertions, one, that resentment stimulated the sons of Ancus against the king himself; the other, that the plot is laid for the king himself upon two considerations, of reason and policy.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.