[294] “‘Incredibilis rerum fama:’ incredibilium rerum fama,” Serv.
[296] Coniugio for “coniuge” 2. 579. The story of Aeneas' meeting with Helenus seems to have been told by Varro in his 2nd book “Rerum divinarum” (Serv. on vv. 256 above, 349 below), as it is told by Dionys. Hal. 1. 51. Both appear to have agreed in one point omitted by Virg., the consultation by Aeneas of the oracle at Dodona (see on v. 257). Varro makes the ‘parva Troia’ (v. 349) a name given to the site where the Trojans encamped while waiting for Aeneas' return from the oracle.
[297] Patrio, as being an Asiatic, Andromache being the daughter of Eetion, king of the Cilician Thebe (Il. 6. 395). ‘Cessisse’ passed to, as in v. 333 below, 12. 17.
[298] For ‘incensum’ a few MSS. give ‘incensum est,’ a few others ‘incensus,’ which Jahn prefers, coupling ‘compellare’ with ‘progredior.’ In any case the infinitives seem to depend on ‘amore,’ as 2. 10 shows, though 8. 163 might be pleaded for connecting them with ‘incensum.’
[299] Partly from 2. 280, partly from 2. 10.
[300] “Notandum sane finitum esse versum participio, quod rarum apud Latinos est, apud Graecos vitiosissimum,” Serv. Wagn. examines this dictum in an excursus on 12. 609—613, ending by accepting it in a very limited sense, as applying to the supposed case of a bona fide participle in the nominative terminating a paragraph, of which he finds no example in Virg., and which he thinks objectionable on account of the weakness of such a termination. The question is one of some interest, but belongs perhaps more properly to a treatise on Latin composition than to a commentary on a Latin poet. Serv. is evidently wrong at the outset in the distinction which he takes between Latin and Greek poetry, as if the offending participle were more to be condemned in the case of the latter than in that of the former. The present participle at any rate is known to be much more idiomatic in Greek than in Latin. Hom. says in one of his most wonderful passages (Il. 6. 201) ἤτοι ὁ κὰπ πεδίον τὸ Ἀλήϊον οὖος ἀλᾶτο, Ὃν θυμὸν κατέδων, πάτον ἀνθρώπων ἀλεείνων. Cicero renders it nearly verbally (Tusc. 3. 26) “qui miser in campis maerens errabat Aleis, Ipse suum cor edens, hominum vestigia vitans;” and we at once feel the difference. As a matter of fact, one book of the Iliad (the 18th), and two of the Odyssey (the 5th and the 15th) end with the obnoxious participle.
[301] Tum, which Heyne preferred, is the reading of two of Ribbeck's cursives. Ladewig rightly observes against Wagn., that if we adopt ‘cum’ we must understand it not in the sense of δὴ τότε, “quae multo alacriorem ac rei necopinatae convenientiorem reddit orationem,” a sense which would not suit the imperfect, but in the sense of ‘at the time when,’ so that the semicolon which Wagn. and others put after ‘linquens’ should be changed into a comma. ‘Tum forte’ would be supported by 9. 3, 638. ‘Sollemnis dapes’ may refer merely to the libations which formed the staple of the offerings to the dead (see on v. 66 above), as ‘libabat’ would seem to show; but there may very well be a zeugma. ‘Dapes’ are distinguished from libations in the funeral offerings to Misenus 6. 225, where see note. In 5. 92 the meaning is doubtful.
[302] So a grove is planted and a chapel built on Anchises' tomb 5. 760. ‘Falsi,’ pretended: see 1. 684, 716.
[303] “‘Cineri:’ non dixit cuius, sed exin latius intelligitur.” Serv. ‘Manisque vocabat:’ v. 68 above.
[304] Hectoreum 2. 543. ‘Tumulum inanem’ 6. 505, where a cenotaph is erected because the body could not be found, not, as here, because it had been buried elsewhere. Cerda mentions a story that the ashes of Hector were removed from Troy to Thebes. Emm. comp. Stat. Theb. 12. 161, “Nomina, quod superest, buis datis orba sepulchris, Absentisque animas ad inania busta vocatis,” where “ad busta,” like ‘ad tumulum’ here, is to be understood ‘at the tomb,’ not, as might at first sight seem plausible, constructed with “vocatis.”
[305]
See on v. 63. “‘Caussam lacrimis:’
hoc tantum, ut caussam lacrimarum
haberet.” Serv. The feeling is the same
as in the well-known lines in Andromache's
speech Il. 24. 742 foll.—
“ἐμοὶ δὲ μάλιστα λελείψεται ἄλγεα
λυγρά:
οὐ γάρ μοι θνήσκων λεχέων ἐκ χεῖρας
ὄρεξας,
οὐδέ τί μοι εἶπες πυκινὸν ἔπος, οὗ τέ κεν
αἰεὶ
μεμνήμην νύκτας τε καὶ ἤματα δακρυχέουσα.
”
[308] “‘Deriguit visu in medio:’ dum me cernit, obstipuit,” Serv. The lines are perhaps imitated, as Heyne suggests, from Od. 4. 704 foll. δὴν δέ μιν ἀμφασίη ἐπέων λάβε . . . Ὄψε δὲ δή μιν ἔπεσσιν ἀμειβομένη προσέειπεν.
[310] For the nom. where we should have expected the accusative comp. 1. 314 &c. Med. has ‘verum.’ ‘Verus nuntius’ is explained by Heyne “ut vere ille sis quem voltus nuntiat:” but it is perhaps better to suppose Andromache to mean ‘one who can really give me news,’ as a living friend after a separation of years would be able to do.
[312] Serv. has a just observation, “Hoc ad Aeneae pertinet gloriam, ut ab Hectore nunquam discessisse videatur. Sensit autem hoc: si umbrae videntur in sacris, cur non eorum magis quibus sacrificatur?”
[314] ‘Subiicere’ is used of replying Varro R. R. 1. 7. ‘Turbatus’ does not refer, as Thiel and perhaps Serv. suppose, to the actual interruption of Aeneas' speech by Andromache's shrieks and sobs, but to the effect produced on his mind by the whole scene. ‘Hisco’ of opening the mouth without full articulation, like “inceptus clamor frustratur hiantis” 6. 493.
[315] Ducere vitam is common enough; here the metaphor is extended and modified by the introduction of the thing through which life is drawn or dragged along, like “poenam traxe per omnem” 5. 786.
[316] Vera fides is found in several late MSS., a plausible variety, as ‘fides’ might be used of seeing as well as of hearing.
[317] Deiectam coniuge is an expression apparently formed on the model of “deiici honore,” “spe” &c., as Heyne suggests. Not unlike is Eur. Alc. 879, ἁμαρτεῖν πιστῆς ἀλόχου.
[318]
Excipere of receiving in succession,
G. 2. 354 note (see also on G. 4.
207), perhaps with an actual reference to
the metaphor in ‘deiectam,’ as in Ov. M.
11. 785 (comp. by Forb.) “Tethys miserata
cadentem Molliter excepit.” The expression
will then be very similar to the wellknown
lines in Shaksp. Hamlet, Act 1, sc.
5, though in Virg.'s words there is no reproach:
“O Hamlet, what a falling off was there,
From me, whose love was of that dignity
That it went hand in hand even with
the vow
I made to her in marriage; and to decline
Upon a wretch, whose natural gifts were
poor
To those of mine!
”
[319] Ladewig and Henry are apparently right in restoring ‘Andromachen’ for ‘Andromache’ from fragm. Vat. (Bottari: but Ribbeck is silent) and some other MSS., supported by the testimony of Serv., who mentions both readings. The external authority for the accusative is perhaps not great: in v. 303 above ‘Andromache’ is corrupted into ‘Andromachen’ by fragm. Vat., and the ‘n’ here may have arisen from ‘Pyrrhin',’ which in fragm. Vat., as in some other copies, was originally ‘Pyrrhi.’ But the common reading is objectionable as conveying an unfeeling reproach to Andromache, understood as it must be with Wagn., “tune, Hectoris coniunx, in Pyrrhi, et hostis, et multo deterioris viri, matrimonium venisti?”—a reproach, too, which would be unmeaning in itself, as Aeneas well knew that Andromache had become Pyrrhus' captive, and therefore, according to the Homeric usage, his concubine, and inconsistent with the previous context, as though Aeneas finds the rumour of Helenus' good fortune incredible, he nevertheless assumes its truth in action (v. 299). The force of these objections might be to a certain extent abated; but enough would remain to make the passage as commonly read difficult and awkward. If we accept the accusative, all is clear: Aeneas asks, as Henry remarks, ‘In what condition do I find Hector's wife?’ the second clause going beyond the first, and referring to the report of her new prosperity, while in the third he inquires whether she is still united to Pyrrhus, in other words, whether the report is a false one. ‘Hectoris Andromachen’ will then balance ‘deiectam coniuge tanto.’ For the genitive ‘Hectoris Andromachen,’ which, as Gossrau observes, is not elliptical but an ordinary possessive, see Madv. § 280, obs. 4. ‘Pyrrhin'’ like “tanton'” 10. 668, 12. 503, “mortalin'” 12. 797, the final ‘e’ being elided before a consonant no less than before a vowel. Wagn. prefers writing these and similar words without an apostrophe.
