[5.1] With these words she thrust each of the children in turn into the arms of both her son-in-law and her daughter and roused great compassion in them both; then, when it was the proper time, she went out of the room and ordered the servants to get everything ready for dressing the king’s wounds and to call the physicians. And letting that night pass, the next day, when the people flocked in great numbers to the palace, she appeared at the windows that gave upon the narrow street before the gates and first informed them who the persons were who had plotted the murder of the king, and produced in chains those whom they had sent to commit the deed.
[2] αὐτῶν δεδεμένους παρήγαγεν: ἔπειθ᾽ ὡς εἶδε πολλοὺς: ὀλοφυρομένους τε τὸ πάθος καὶ τοῖς δεδρακόσιν ἀπεχθομένους, τελευτῶσα εἶπεν οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν ἀνοσίων ἐπιβουλευμάτων γεγονέναι οὐ δυνηθεῖσιν ἀποκτεῖναι Ταρκύνιον. ἀγαπητῶς δὲ τὸν λόγον ἁπάντων δεξαμένων τότε τὸν Τύλλιον αὐτοῖς συνίστησιν ὡς ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐπίτροπον ἁπάντων τῶν τ᾽ ἰδίων καὶ τῶν κοινῶν ἀποδεικνύμενον, ἕως αὐτὸς ῥαΐσῃ.
[2] Then, finding that many lamented the calamity and were angry at the authors of it, she at last told them that these men had gained naught from their wicked designs, since they had not been able to kill Tarquinius. This statement being received with universal joy, she then commended Tullius to them as the person appointed by the king to be the guardian of all his interests, both private and public, till he himself recovered.
[3] ὁ μὲν οὖν δῆμος ἀπῄει περιχαρὴς γενόμενος, εἰ μηδὲν πέπονθεν ὁ βασιλεὺς δεινόν, καὶ μέχρι πολλοῦ τὴν δόξαν ἔχων ταύτην διετέλει. ὁ δὲ Τύλλιος ἰσχυρὰν χεῖρα περὶ αὑτὸν ἔχων καὶ τοὺς ῥαβδούχους ἐπαγόμενος τοὺς βασιλικοὺς προῆλθεν εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν καὶ τοὺς Μαρκίους ἐκήρυττεν ἥκειν ὑφέξοντας δίκην: ὡς δ᾽ οὐχ ὑπήκουον, ἐπικηρύξας αὐτοῖς ἀϊδίους φυγὰς καὶ τὰς οὐσίας ἀναλαβὼν εἰς τὸ δημόσιον ἀσφαλῶς ἤδη τὴν Ταρκυνίου κατεῖχεν ἀρχήν.
[3] The people, therefore, went away greatly rejoicing, in the belief that the king had suffered no fatal injury, and continued for a long time in that opinion. Afterwards Tullius, attended by a strong body of men and taking along the king’s lictors, went to the Forum and caused proclamation to be made for the Marcii to appear and stand trial; and upon their failure to obey, he pronounced sentence of perpetual banishment against them, and having confiscated their property, he was now in secure possession of the sovereignty of Tarquinius.
[1] βούλομαι δ᾽ ἐπιστήσας τὸν ἑξῆς λόγον ἀποδοῦναι τὰς αἰτίας, δι᾽ ἃς οὔτε Φαβίῳ συγκατεθέμην οὔτε τοῖς ἄλλοις ἱστορικοῖς, ὅσοι γράφουσιν υἱοὺς εἶναι τοὺς καταλειφθέντας παῖδας ὑπὸ Ταρκυνίου, ἵνα μή τινες τῶν ἐκείναις ἐντυχόντων ταῖς ἱστορίαις σχεδιάζειν με ὑπολάβωσιν οὐχ υἱοὺς, ἀλλ᾽ υἱωνοὺς αὐτοῦ [p. 11] γράφοντα τοὺς παῖδας. παντάπασι γὰρ ἀπερισκέπτως καὶ ῥᾳθύμως οἱ συγγραφεῖς περὶ αὐτῶν ταύτην ἐξενηνόχασι τὴν ἱστορίαν οὐδὲν ἐξητακότες τῶν ἀναιρούντων αὐτὴν ἀδυνάτων τε καὶ ἀτόπων: ὧν ἕκαστον ἐγὼ πειράσομαι ποιῆσαι φανερὸν δι᾽ ὀλίγων.
[6.1] I shall interrupt the narration of what follows that I may give the reasons which have induced me to disagree with Fabius and the rest of the historians who affirm that the children left by Tarquinius were his sons, to the end that none who have read those histories may suspect that I am inventing when I call them his grandsons rather than his sons. For it is sheer heedlessness and indolence that has led these historians to publish that account of them without first examining any of the impossibilities and absurdities that are fatal to it. Each of these absurdities I will endeavour to point out in a few words.
[2] Ταρκύνιος ἐκ Τυρρηνίας μετανίσταται τὸν οἶκον ὅλον ἀνασκευασάμενος ἐν τῇ κρατίστῃ τοῦ φρονεῖν ὑπάρχων ἡλικίᾳ. πολιτεύεσθαι γὰρ ἤδη καὶ ἄρχειν καὶ τὰ κοινὰ πράττειν ἀξιῶν παραδίδοται, καὶ τὴν ἄπαρσιν ἐκεῖθεν πεποιημένος διὰ τὸ μηδεμιᾶς ἐν τῇ πόλει τιμῆς μεταλαμβάνειν.
[2] Tarquinius packed up and removed from Tyrrhenia with all his household at an age the most capable of reflection; for it is reported that he already aspired to take part in public life, to hold magistracies and to handle public affairs, and that he removed from there because he was not allowed to share in any position of honour in the state.
[3] ἕτερος μὲν οὖν ἄν τις αὐτὸν ὑπέθετο καὶ τριακοστὸν ἔτος ἔχοντα τοὐλάχιστον, ὅτ᾽ ἀπῆρεν ἐκ Τυρρηνίας: ἀπὸ ταύτης γὰρ οἱ νόμοι τῆς ἡλικίας καλοῦσιν ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ τοὺς ἄρχειν τε καὶ πράττειν βουλομένους τὰ κοινά: ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἔτι νεώτερον αὐτὸν ὑποτίθεμαι πέντε ὅλοις ἔτεσι, καὶ ποιῶ κατὰ τὸ πέμπτον καὶ εἰκοστὸν ἔτος ἀπανιστάμενον. καὶ μὴν ὅτι γυναῖκα Τυρρηνίδα ἐπηγάγετο, ἣν ζῶντος ἔτι τοῦ πατρὸς ἔγημεν, ἅπαντες ὁμολογοῦσιν οἱ τὰς Ῥωμαϊκὰς συγγράψαντες ἱστορίας.
[3] Anyone else, then, might have assumed that he was at least in his thirtieth year when he left Tyrrhenia, since it is from this age onwards, as a rule, that the laws call to the magistracies and to the administration of public affairs those who desire such a career; but I will suppose him five whole years younger than this and put him in his twenty-fifth year when he removed. Moreover, all the Roman historians agree that he brought with him a Tyrrhenian wife, whom he had married while his father was yet alive.
[4] παραγίνεται δ᾽ εἰς Ῥώμην Ἄγκου Μαρκίου βασιλεύοντος, ὡς μὲν Γέλλιος ἱστορεῖ κατὰ τὸν πρῶτον ἐνιαυτὸν τῆς βασιλείας, ὡς δὲ Λικίννιος γράφει κατὰ τὸν ὄγδοον. ἔστω δὴ κατὰ τοῦτον ἐληλυθὼς τὸν ἐνιαυτόν, καθ᾽ ὃν γράφει Λικίννιος, καὶ μὴ πρότερον: ἐν ὑστέρῳ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἂν εἴη χρόνῳ παραγεγονώς, εἴγε δὴ κατὰ τὸν ἔνατον ἐνιαυτὸν τῆς [p. 12] Ἄγκου δυναστείας ἱππέων ἡγούμενος ἐπὶ τὸν πρὸς Λατίνους πόλεμον ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως πέμπεται, ὡς ἀμφότεροι λέγουσιν οἱ συγγραφεῖς: εἰ δὴ παρεγένετο μὲν εἰς Ῥώμην οὐ πλείω τῶν πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι γεγονὼς ἐτῶν, Ἄγκῳ δὲ βασιλεῖ κατὰ τὸν ὄγδοον τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐνιαυτὸν φίλος γενόμενος ἑπτακαίδεκα διέτριψεν ἔτη παρ᾽ αὐτῷ τὰ λοιπά: τέτταρα γὰρ ἐπὶ τοῖς εἴκοσι βεβασίλευκεν Ἄγκος: ἔτη δ᾽ ὀκτὼ καὶ τριάκοντα τὴν βασιλείαν κατέσχεν αὐτὸς ὡς ἅπαντες ὁμολογ�
�ῦσιν, ὀγδοηκονταέτης ἂν ἦν, ὅτ᾽ ἐτελεύτα. ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ συλλογισμοῦ
[4] He came to Rome in the first year of the reign of Ancus Marcius, as Gellius writes, but according to Licinius, in the eighth year. Grant, then, that he came in the year Licinius states and not before; for he could not have come after that time, since in the ninth year of the reign of Ancus he was sent by the king to command the cavalry in the war against the Latins, as both these historians state. Now, if he was not more than twenty-five years old when he came to Rome, and, having been received into the friendship of Ancus, who was then king, in the eighth year of his reign (for Ancus reigned twenty-four years), and if he himself reigned thirty-eight, as all agree, he must have been fourscore years old when he died; for this is the sum obtained by adding up the years.
[5] τῶν ἐτῶν τοῦτο συνάγεται τὸ πλῆθος. ἡ γυνὴ δ᾽ εἰ πέντε ἔτεσιν ἦν αὐτοῦ νεωτέρα καθάπερ εἰκός, ἑβδομηκοστὸν ἂν δήπου καὶ πέμπτον εἶχεν ἔτος, ὅτ᾽ ἀπέθνησκε Ταρκύνιος. εἰ δὴ τὸν νεώτερον τῶν υἱῶν ἔσχατον ἐκύησεν ἔτος ἔχουσα πεντηκοστόν: προσωτέρω γὰρ οὐκέτι κυΐσκεται τούτου τοῦ χρόνου γυνή, ἀλλ᾽ ἔστιν οὗτος αὐτὸς τῶν ὠδίνων ὁ ὅρος, ὡς οἱ ταῦτ᾽ ἐξητακότες γράφουσιν: οὗτος μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἂν ἐλάττω γεγονὼς ἦν ἐτῶν πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι κατὰ τὸν τοῦ πατρὸς θάνατον, ὁ δὲ Λεύκιος ὁ πρεσβύτερος οὐ μείων ἑπτακαιεικοσαέτους: οὐκ ἄρα νηπίους κατέλιπεν υἱοὺς
[5] If his wife was five years younger, as may well be supposed, she was presumably in her seventy-fifth year when Tarquinius died. Accordingly, if she conceived her second and last son when she was in her fiftieth year (for at a more advanced age a woman no longer conceives, but this is itself the limit of her child-bearing, as those authors write who have looked into these things), this son could not have been less than twenty-five years old when his father died, and Lucius, the elder, not less than twenty-seven; hence the sons whom Tarquinius left by this wife could not have been infants.
[6] ὁ Ταρκύνιος ἐκ ταύτης γεγονότας τῆς γυναικός. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἴγ᾽ ἀνδρῶν ἡλικίαν εἶχον οἱ παῖδες, ὅθ᾽ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῶν ἀπέθνησκεν, οὔτ᾽ ἂν ἡ μήτηρ αὐτῶν οὕτως ἦν [p. 13] ἀθλία καὶ θεοβλαβής, ὥστ᾽ ἀφαιρεῖσθαι μὲν τῶν ἑαυτῆς τέκνων ἣν κατέλιπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ πατὴρ ἀρχήν, τῷ δ᾽ ἀλλοτρίῳ καὶ ἐκ δούλης γεγονότι χαρίζεσθαι: οὔτ᾽ ἂν αὐτοὶ τῆς πατρῴας ἀρχῆς ἀποστερούμενοι φαύλως καὶ ῥᾳθύμως τὸ ἀδίκημα ἤνεγκαν καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἐν τῇ κρατίστῃ τοῦ λέγειν τε καὶ πράττειν ὄντες ἀκμῇ: οὔτε γὰρ εὐγενείᾳ προεῖχεν αὐτῶν ὁ Τύλλιος ἐκ δούλης μητρὸς ὢν οὔθ᾽ ἡλικίας ἀξιώματι παρὰ πολὺ διήλλαττεν, ἀλλὰ τρισὶ μόνον ἔτεσι θατέρου πρεσβύτερος ἦν: ὥστ᾽ οὐκ ἄν γε παρεχώρησαν αὐτῷ τῆς βασιλείας ἑκόντες.
[6] But surely, if her sons had been grown men when their father died, it cannot be imagined either that their mother would have been so miserable a creature or so infatuated as to deprive her own children of the sovereignty their father had left them and bestow it upon an outsider and the son of a slave-woman, or, again, that her sons themselves, when thus deprived of their father’s sovereignty, would have borne the injustice in so abject and supine a manner, and that at an age when they were at the very height of their powers both of speech and of action. For Tullius neither had the advantage of them in birth, being the son of a slave-woman, nor excelled them much in the dignity of age, being only three years older than one of them; so that they would not willingly have yielded the kingship to them.
[1] ἔχει δὲ καὶ ἄλλας τινὰς τὸ πρᾶγμα ἀτοπίας, ἃς ἅπαντες ἠγνόησαν οἱ τὰ Ῥωμαϊκὰ συνταξάμενοι πλὴν ἑνός, οὗ μετὰ μικρὸν ἐρῶ τοὔνομα. ὡμολόγηται γάρ, ὅτι μετὰ τὴν Ταρκυνίου τελευτὴν παραλαβὼν τὴν βασιλείαν Τύλλιος ἐπ᾽ ἔτη τετταράκοντα καὶ τέτταρα κατέσχεν, ὥστ᾽ εἰ κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον ἑκτακαιεικοσαέτης ἦν, ὅτ᾽ ἀπεστερεῖτο τῆς ἀρχῆς ὁ πρεσβύτερος τῶν Ταρκυνίων, ὑπὲρ ἑβδομήκοντα ἔτη γεγονὼς ἄν ἦν, ὅτε τὸν Τύλλιον ἀπέκτεινεν.
[7.1] This view involves some other absurdities, too, of which all the Roman historians have been ignorant, with the exception of one whom I shall name presently. For it has been agreed that Tullius, having succeeded to the kingdom after the death of Tarquinius, held it for forty-four years; so that, if the eldest of the Tarquinii was twenty-seven years old when he was deprived of the sovereignty, he must have been above seventy when he killed Tullius.
[2] ἐν κρατίστῃ δέ γ᾽ αὐτὸν ἡλικίᾳ τότ᾽ ὄντα παραδεδώκασιν οἱ συγγραφεῖς καί φασιν, ὅτι Τύλλιον αὐτὸς ἀράμενος ἐκ τοῦ βουλευτηρίου καὶ φέρων ἔξω κατὰ τῶν κρηπίδων ἐξέχεεν. ἥ τ᾽ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἔκπτωσις αὐτοῦ γίνεται πέμπτῳ καὶ εἰκοστῷ μετὰ ταῦτ᾽ ἔτει, καὶ τούτῳ τῷ ἔτει στρατευόμενος ἐν τῷ πρὸς Ἀρδεάτας εἰσάγεται πολέμῳ καὶ πάντα [p. 14] τὰ ἔργα δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ τελῶν: οὐκ εἶχε δὲ λόγον ἐν πολέμοις ἐξετάζεσθαι ἓξ καὶ ἐνενήκοντα βεβιωκὼς ἔτη.
[2] But he was then in the prime of life, according to the tradition handed down by the historians, and they state that he himself lifted up Tullius, and carrying him out of the senate-house, hurled him down the steps. His expulsion from the kingship happened in the twenty-fifth year after this, and in that same year he is represented as making war against the people of Ardea and performing all the duties himself; but it is not reasonable to suppose that a man ninety-six years old should be taking part in wars.
[3] ἐκπεσών τε τῆς ἀρχῆς ἔτι πολεμεῖν Ῥωμαίοις οὐκ ἐλάττω τεττάρων καὶ δέκα ἐτῶν, αὐτὸς ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν ἐξεταζόμενος, ὥς φασι, παρὰ τὰς κοινὰς ἁπάντων ἐστὶ δόξας, καὶ ὁ τοῦ βίου χρόνος αὐτῷ πλείων ἀναφαίνεται τῶν ἑκατὸν καὶ δέκα γεγονὼς ἐτῶν: τοῦτο δὲ τὸ μῆκος τῶν βίων οὐ φέρουσιν οἱ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς τόποι.
[3] And after his expulsion he still makes war against the Romans for no less than fourteen years, being present himself, they say, at all the engagements — which is contrary to all common sense. Thus, according to them, he must have lived above one hundred and ten years; but this length of life is not produced by our climes.
[4] ταῦτα δὴ τὰ ἄτοπα συνειδότες τῶν Ῥωμαϊκῶν συγγραφέων τινὲς ἑτέραις αὐτὰ λύειν ἐπειράθησαν ἀτοπίαις, οὐ Τανακυλίδα ποιοῦντες μητέρα τῶν παιδίων, ἀλλὰ Γεγανίαν τινά, περὶ ἧς οὐδεμίαν παρειλήφαμεν ἱστορίαν: ἄωρος δὴ γίνεται πάλιν ὁ γάμος τοῦ Ταρ
κυνίου μικρὸν ἀπολείποντος ἐτῶν ὀγδοήκοντα, καὶ ἡ τῶν τέκνων γένεσις τοῖς ταύτην ἔχουσι τὴν ἡλικίαν ἄπιστος: οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄπαις ἦν, ὥστ᾽ ἐκ παντὸς ἐπιθυμῆσαι τέκνων, ἀλλὰ θυγατέρες ἦσαν αὐτῷ δύο καὶ
[4] Some of the Roman historians, being sensible of these absurdities, have endeavoured to solve them by means of other absurdities, alleging that not Tanaquil but one Gegania, of whom no other account has come down to us, was the mother of the children. But here again, the marriage of Tarquinius is unseasonable, he being then very near fourscore years old, and the begetting of children by men of that age is incredible; nor was he a childless man, who would wish by all means for children, for he had two daughters and these already married.
[5] αὗταί γ᾽ ἤδη γεγαμημέναι. τούτων δὴ τῶν ἀδυνάτων τε καὶ ἀτόπων ἕκαστα ἐπιλογιζόμενος οὐχ υἱοὺς εἶναι Ταρκυνίου γράφω τοὺς παῖδας, ἀλλ᾽ υἱωνούς, Λευκίῳ Πείσωνι τῷ Φρῦγι συγκαταθέμενος. ἐκεῖνος γὰρ ἐν ταῖς ἐνιαυσίοις πραγματείαις ταῦθ᾽ ἱστόρηκε μόνος: εἰ [p. 15] μή γ᾽ ἄρα γόνῳ μὲν ἦσαν υἱωνοὶ τοῦ βασιλέως οἱ παῖδες, ποιήσει δ᾽ υἱοί, καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἦν αἴτιον τῆς ἀπάτης τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασι τοῖς συγγράψασι τὰς Ῥωμαϊκὰς ἱστορίας. προειρημένων δὴ τούτων καιρὸς ἐπανάγειν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀπολειπομένην διήγησιν.
Delphi Complete Works of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Illustrated) (Delphi Ancient Classics Book 79) Page 499