If she alone felt it, then I say she deserved the love of a god, because of her zeal for all that is best and noblest. II. Both were born statesmen, yet neither behaved himself as a king should do, but, from similar motives, the one erred on the side of democracy, the other on that of despotism. The first duty of a king is to preserve his crown; and this can be effected as well by refraining from improperly extending his rights as by too great eagerness to keep them. For he who either gives up or overstrains his prerogative ceases to be a king or constitutional ruler, but becomes either a despot or demagogue; and in the one case is feared, in the other despised by his subjects. Still the one is the result of kindliness of disposition, and the other that of selfishness and ferocity. III. If we are not to attribute their misfortunes to chance, but to peculiarities of disposition, then we cannot acquit Romulus of blame in his treatment of his brother, nor Theseus in that of his son; but the greatest excuse must be made for the one who acted under the greatest provocation. One would not have thought that Romulus would have flown into such a passion during a grave deliberation on matters of state; while Theseus was misled, in his treatment of his son, by love and jealousy and a woman's slander, influences which few men are able to withstand. And what is more, Romulus's fury resulted in actual deeds of unfortunate result; whereas the anger of Theseus spent itself in words and an old man's curses, and the youth seems to have owed the rest of his suffering to chance; so here, at any rate, one would give one's vote for Theseus. IV. Romulus, however, has the credit of having started with the most slender resources, and yet of having succeeded. The twins were called slaves and the sons of a swineherd before they achieved their liberty; yet they freed nearly all the Latin race, and at one and the same time gained those titles which are the most glorious among men, of slayers of their enemies, preservers of their own house, kings of their own nation, and founders of a new city, not by transferring the population of old ones, as Theseus did, when he brought together many towns into one, and destroyed many cities that bore the names of kings and heroes of old. Romulus did this afterwards, when he compelled his conquered enemies to cast down and obliterate their own dwellings, and become fellow-citizens with their conquerors; yet at first he did not change the site of his city nor increase it, but starting with nothing to help him, he obtained for himself territory, patrimony, sovereignty, family, marriage, and relatives, and he killed no one, but conferred great benefits on those who, instead of homeless vagrants, wished to become a people and inhabitants of a city. He slew no brigands or robbers, but he conquered kingdoms, took cities, and triumphed over kings and princes.