According to concert, one begins to state the matter.

When the king, attentive to him, had turned himself quite that way, the other, raising up his axe, struck it into his head, and leaving the weapon in the wound, they both rush out of the house.
[Footnote 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.] [Footnote 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._] [Footnote 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 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, _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.