I’ve tried to render this translation as literally as I can. The nec…nec clause puzzled me a bit. My understanding of the grammar of this sentence rests on my view that tulit has two objects: lacramas and animum. Do I have that right?
Non tulit populus nec patris lacrimas nec ipsius parem in omni periculo animum, absolveruntque admiratione magis virtutis quam iure causae.
The people could neither bear the tears of the father nor the same mood of themselves [when when they were] in total danger, and they acquitted more with admiration for the courage than by the justice of the case.
The people could neither bear the tears of the father nor his equal courage in every danger, and they acquitted more for admiration of the courage than for the justice of the case.
As a matter of interest, how is one supposed to figure out that ipsius refers to Horatius? Is it because he is the important subject of the story and of the preceding paragraph? I sometimes get the feeling with Latin that the meaning of a sentence is not inherent in the words of that sentence but in the context.
Perhaps it’s the same with English but being a native speaker I don’t notice it.
Ipsius makes it clear that it’s Horatius and not his father whose courage was equal in every danger [to the danger]. Eius here would be ambiguous, and ipsius eliminates any ambiguity: “his own courage.”
“The people could not endure [i.e., they could not resist, they were swayed by] [his] father’s tears and his own courage, [which was] in every danger equal [to the danger]. . . .”