[82] Livy V, 1. and the commentators on that passage.
[83] Ulric Becker, in Dahlmann’s Researches in the Field of Ancient History (Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der alten Geschichte.)—Germ. Edit.
[84] Orelli T. V., II. p. 255.
[85] This is not quite correct. There are native officers in the Company’s Sepoy regiments; but they are in every case subordinate to the Europeans.—Note of the English Translator.
[86] The Fasti, such as we have them, mention four Valerii as the sons of Volesus; Publius Poplicola, Marcus, Manius, and Lucius; the latter, or his son Caius, only occurs as Quæstor. The old legends, on the other hand, only knew of two, Publius Poplicola, and Marcus surnamed Maximus. Volesus, wherever he occurs, is mentioned as a Sabine, in the Annals, which Dionysius follows in order to fill up the blank of the earliest times, as a companion of Tatius; others assert, that he had emigrated to Rome at the bidding of the oracles, and very likely this is the older tradition. It is a common genealogical mistake to deem all of them brothers, Dio Cassius calls Marcus only a clansman of Publius, and the additional term which all the others bestow upon the Valerii, Volesi filius or nepos, originated merely from the general desire to trace back all the members of a gens to some Hero as the common ancestor of their race.
[87] Lar is an Etruscan prænomen frequently occurring on the monuments, and it probably means king or God. Martial’s scansion Porsĕna is incorrect: in Vibenna, Cæcina, and others, the same termination always appears with the penultima long.
[88] That this number is the correct one,—the MSS. of Livy having thirty-one,—is proved in the new edition of the first volume of the Roman History.
[89] That is to say, the patricians: for these, and not the senate, are meant by patres in every correct writer.
[90] Boekh, Political Œconomy of the Athenians, vol. ii. p. 12.—Germ. Ed.
[91] Ingenious and learned men among the commentators of Livy have written on the relations of the nexi; yet all their researches have missed their object, with the exception of what Doujat, who if I remember right, was a councillor of Parliament in Paris, has said about the matter. Yet those, who wrote after him, did not allow themselves to be taught by him, but they returned to the former errors; as for instance, Drakenborch, although he quotes this author, a proof that learned students, who are not men of the world, may often be mistaken in such matters.