[45] Præcones ab extremo. At the farther part of the Roman camp, where it joined that of the Albans.
[46] As well as by the orders issued by Tullus.
[47] Malitiosam. Την ὕλην καλουμένην Κακοῦργον. Dio. iii.
[48] The Lucumones were a class of persons among the Etrurians of a warlike sacerdotal character, patricians, not kings. Vid. Niebuhr, i. p. 372.
[49] In my version of this passage I have followed the reading, et pleraque in ratibus, impacta sublicis quum hærerent, p. i. The burning logs were not sent down the river one by one, but were placed on rafts, so that being incapable of passing on between the piers of the bridge, they firmly stuck there, and burnt the bridge. This mode of interpretation is confirmed by Dion. iii. 5, 6. The bridge here meant is the one built by the Sabines at the confluence of the Anio and the Tiber——Another reading is, pleraque in ratibus impacta subliciis quam hærerent, "most of them being driven against the boats, resting on piles, stuck there," &c.
[50] 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.
[51] 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.
[52] 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—tum, 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 injuriæ 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, tum, 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.
[53] By public—private. The "public" were the steps taken by Servius to establish his political ascendency, whilst the "private" refer to those intended to strengthen his family connexions.
[54] The truce had now expired. If the truce concluded with them by Romulus be here meant, it was long since expired, since about 140 years had now elapsed. It is probable, however, that it was renewed in the reign of Tullius.