[724] The doctrine of the ‘anima mundi,’ which Anchises proceeds to expound, has been already mentioned by Virg. G. 4. 219 (note), though there he does not commit himself to it. ‘Principio’ introducing an exposition 3. 381. It is common in Lucr., e. g. 5. 92, “Principio, maria ac terras caelumque tuere,” which Virg. may have imitated. There is some resemblance also, as Heyne remarks, between the present passage and Cic. de Div. 1. 11, where a long extract is given from Cicero's poem on his consulship beginning “Principio aetherio flammatus Iuppiter igni.” For ‘terras’ Pal., Rom., Gud., and the first reading of fragm. Vat. have ‘terram.’ Wagn. Q. V. 9. 6 remarks that in expressions like this, where the earth is spoken of in its entirety, yet without any thought of personification, Virg. prefers the plural. ‘Campos liquentis’ of the sea, like “campi natantes” G. 3. 198 note.
[725] Ingentem is the first reading of Med., possibly pointing to a variant ‘fulgentem.’ “Lunaique globum” Lucr. 5. 69. ‘Titaniaque astra’ seems best referred to the sun alone, already 4. 119 called ‘Titan,’ as one of the Titanic brotherhood, being the son of the Titan Hyperion. The stars had no connexion with the Titans: nor would it be natural either that they should be mentioned to the exclusion of the sun or that the sun should be merged among them, they having been already distinguished from the moon. The pl. for the sing. is supported by Ov. M. 14. 172, “sidera solis” (where however another reading is “lumina”), and Val. F. 2. 364, “Saturnia sidera,” which is said of Capricorn alone. If it is any thing more than an arbitrary stretch of poetical licence, it is probably to be explained of the rising and setting sun regarded as two, as Ov. M. 1. 338 talks of “littora sub utroque iacentia Phoebo,” and Petronius of “sidus utrumque.” So Weber (Corpus Poetarum） on Ov. M. 14. 172. Dryden conj. “Titanaque et astra,” a plausible suggestion from an amateur critic.
[727] Corpore like ‘molem’ of the entire mundane frame. Henry attempts to restrict it to the earth, comparing G. 2. 327; but the expression there, as here, is simply an obvious metaphor, not a new sense stamped on a word and adhering to it independently of the context: and his other parallel from Pervigilium Veneris v. 55 is only an imitation of the passage in the Georgics. ‘Miscet se corpore’ like “genus mixtum sanguine” 12. 838, the more ordinary construction being with the dat. or with the abl. with ‘cum.’ Possibly it is to be explained grammatically as the abl. of the agent, as in such expressions as “pulvere campus miscetur” 12. 445, the element of mixture being regarded as the cause which has brought the mixture about. Comp. 8. 510, “mixtus matre Sabella,” where there seems a confusion between the mother as causing the son's blood to be mixed, not pure, and as mixing her own blood with the father's. At the same time, we must not forget the connexion between the dat. and abl., nor the probability that a case which is used in a particular sense with a preposition may be found bearing that sense without it. “Aura mixta vapore” occurs Lucr. 3. 233.
[728] Rom. has ‘volucrum,’ but ‘ucr’ is written over an erasure. With the line generally comp. G. 4. 223 foll. The expression resembles that of several passages in Lucr., e. g. 2. 1082, “Sic hominum genitam prolem, sic denique mutas Squamigerum pecudes et corpora cuncta volantum.” The meaning here seems to be that this union of mind with matter is the cause of individual life in animals, which consist of soul and body. Heyne refers to the Stoic expressions of the ‘anima mundi’ doctrine, such as that of Posidonius, who made individual souls the sparks, ἀποσπάσματα or σπέρματα, of the πνεῦμα νοερὸν καὶ πυρῶδες.
[729] Marmoreo aequore, the ἅλα μαρμαρέην of Il. 14. 273. The application of ‘marmor’ to the sea in Latin is as old as Ennius. The Latins seem to have thought of smoothness where Hom. thought of glancing light, μάρμαρος being connected with μαρμαίρω, and thus only one of many objects which might be said to glisten or reflect light, whereas in Latin the ‘marmor’ or polished stone gives the keynote, and things are called ‘marmoreus’ because they resemble marble. Comp. the different applications of πορφύρεος and ‘purpureus,’ mentioned on G. 4. 373, where, though the case seems reversed, the Greek conception of colour being perhaps more definite there than the Roman, it is of no less importance to remark that the Romans apply the words to things partaking of the nature of the object purple, the Greeks to things partaking of the nature of that from which purple took its name. ‘Monstra’ of strange shapes, there being more room for the marvellous among the creatures of the deep than among the better known inhabitants of the land.
[730] Igneus vigor is virtually parallel to ‘caelestis origo,’ the pure aether with which the divine soul is identified being regarded as flame. Comp. v. 746 below and G. 4. 220 note. ‘Ollis’ might conceivably be separated in grammar from ‘seminibus,’ but they are doubtless meant to be constructed together. See on 3. 162.
[731] It seems difficult to say whether ‘seminibus’ is used with reference to the sparks of flame, “semina flammae” v. 6 above (see on v. 728 ad finem), or simply of the soul regarded as the seminal principle of life. ‘Quantum non,’ &c. does not strictly cohere with what precedes, as the influence of the body would not affect the principle of the soul, but only the extent of its operation, which is evidently Virg.'s real meaning. ‘Tardant—hebetant’ like “gelidus tardante senecta Sanguis hebet” 5. 395. Ribbeck adopts from Pal. and Gud. (where however the order is corrected), and others mentioned by Burm., ‘corpora noxia:’ but the order in the text is found in Med., fragm. Vat., Rom., &c.
[732] Moribunda is stronger than ‘mortalia,’ implying that the body is ready to die, and would die but for the resistance of the principle of life.
[733] Hinc, from this influence of the body. ‘Voluptas,’ ‘cupiditas,’ ‘aegritudo,’ and ‘metus’ form the fourfold division of ‘perturbationes’ in Cic. Tusc. 3. 11, the two first expressing the impression made by a great good, present or future, the two last that made by a great evil, present or future. The same division occurs Hor. 1 Ep. 6. 12, “Gaudeat an doleat, cupiat metuatne, quid ad rem?” where, as here, it is used as a philosophical commonplace. Cerda traces it in the Greek philosophers, including Plato. ‘Auras’ = ‘caelum,’ as Henry observes, though he is hypercritical in condemning Heyne'sexplanation ‘lucem,’ which was doubtless meant, not as a lexicographical explanation, but merely as a substantial equivalent in the present context.
[734] In the small text of Virg. I had recalled ‘respiciunt’ with Henry, supposing it to be the reading of Pal.; but it is found only in two of Ribbeck's cursives and there from a correction, in inferior copies mentioned by Wagn., in the MSS. of Donatus, and in some copies of Serv. Thus the weight of authority is decidedly in favour of ‘dispiciunt,’ which is actually found in Gud. a m. p. and some later copies, and is really supported by all those (Med., fragm. Vat., Rom., Pal., &c.) which read ‘dispiciunt.’ See on 1. 211, G. 2. 8, 354 &c. ‘Dispicere’ is specially used of looking through darkness or seeing after blindness, as in Lucr. 2.741 (which Virg. may have had in his mind), Cic. Fin. 4. 23, Suet. Ner. 19. In all of these places the MSS. seem to give ‘despicere:’ but modern critics will hardly agree with Wakef. on Lucr. l. c. in retaining ‘despicere’ on that account, and attempting to give it a sense which from analogy it appears incapable of bearing. Where the mistake is at once so easy and so commonly made, it is clearly one which may be corrected without the help of MSS., from a simple consideration of the requirements of the case. Henry denies the applicability of the sense here, but the language of the rest of the line seems to me distinctly to recommend it. ‘Their gaze cannot pierce the sky, imprisoned as they are in darkness and a blind fleshly dungeon.’ Cerda illustrates the comparison of the body to a dungeon, the origin of which is referred by Plato, Cratylus p. 400 c, to the Orphic school: δοκοῦσι μέντοι μοι μάλιστα θέσθαι οἱ ἀμφὶ Ὀρφέα τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα (sc. σῶμα), ὡς δίκην διδούσης τῆς ψυχῆς ὧν δὴ ἕνεκα δίδωσι: τοῦτον δὲ περίβολον ἔχειν, ἵνα σώζηται, δεσμωτηρίου εἰκόνα. See Stallbaum l. c. and on Phaedo, p. 62 B.
[735] “Vita reliquit” Lucr. 5.63. ‘Supremo lumine’ seems to mean ‘with its last ray,’ ‘supremo’ being used by a kind of prolepsis: the words however might possibly mean ‘on their last day,’ their day of death, nearly as Lucr. 1.546 uses “supremo tempore.”
[737] Pestes, νόσοι. ‘Penitusque,’ &c.: Heyne remarks that the natural sequence would have been “nec excedunt, sed penitus inoluerunt.” Virg. has chosen not only to couple a negative sentence to an affirmative by an ordinary copulative (for which Forb. comp. inter alia Ov. M. 13. 521 foll. “Felix morte sua nec te, mea nata, peremptam Adspicit et vitam pariter regnumque reliquit”), but to use the present ‘inolescere’ where we should have expected the past ‘inoluisse,’ in other words to express himself as if he were speaking of the soul when still in life, not of the soul after death.
[738] Diu with ‘concreta,’ giving in fact the reason why these plagues become part of the being, viz. that they have grown together with it so long. “Concretam labem” below v. 746. ‘Modis miris’ 1. 354 note. ‘Inolescere’ G. 2. 77. Fea's conj. ‘abolescere’ is ingenious, but, as Henry remarks, quite unnecessary.
[739] Exercentur γυμνάζονται. See on v. 543 above. “Veterum malorum” v. 527, where as here it is used of crime.
[740] Supplicia expendunt 11. 258, where there is a similar use of ‘poenae’ with a gen. of the offence. ‘Panduntur’ is explained of crucifixion by Cerda, whom Henry follows, perhaps rightly. He shows that κρέμασθαι and ‘suspendi’ were specially used in that sense (comp. St. Paul's application of κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου Gal. 3. 13 to crucifixion, the primary reference of the words being different, as is remarked by Ellicott in loco), and argues that ‘panduntur’ points the same way. But it signifies little what was the precise image Virg. had before his mind, the real point being that the spirit is hung up in such a way as to secure its purification by air. Serv. refers to the ‘oscilla’ in the festival of Bacchus (G. 2. 389 note, where the parallel is mentioned by anticipation): but Gossrau remarks that no one but Serv. seems to have connected these with purification, and that other traditional notices of them explain them differently. “Ventos inanis” 10. 82. Henry ingeniously makes ‘inanes’ here the nom., supposing the meaning to be that the winds blow through the unsubstantial forms of the spirits: there would however be something awkward in the predicative epithet here, when we have already to connect ‘suspensae’ closely with ‘panduntur;’ and it is possible that the same meaning may be intended by the application of the epithet to the winds, which being thin and unsubstantial, are conceived of as the more penetrating. Notices of this threefold purification are cited by Cerda from Martianus Capella and St. Augustin: but it is not clear that they, any more than Serv., had any further authority for the custom than the present passage of Virg.
[741] “Gurgite vasto” 1. 118. The epithet shows the thoroughness of the purification. Gossrau comp. the words of Glaucus, Ov. M. 13. 952 foll.
[742] Infectum may either be an adj. or a participle. Gossrau understands it in the former sense, making ‘infectum eluitur’ = ‘eluitur ita ut infectum sit.’ But this is hardly Virgilian, and is not sufficiently supported by 12. 242, “foedusque precantur infectum.” On the other hand it is certainly harsh to understand ‘infectum scelus’ as ‘scelus quo quis inficitur;’ but it seems not unlike Virg., and is perhaps justified by such inversions as 4. 477 note. For passive participles in Greek which may be explained on the principle of the cognate acc. see my note on Aesch. Choeph. 806. The force of ‘infici’ is well illustrated by Forb. from Sen. Ep. 59, “Diu in istis vitiis iacuimus: elui difficile est: non enim inquinati sumus, sed infecti.” No other instance is quoted of ‘exuri’ in the sense of being removed by burning (for in Plaut. Rud. 3. 4. 62 and Cic. de Div. 3. 3 the sense or reading seems more than doubtful): but such a use of the compound is abundantly defended from analogy, e. g. ‘eluitur’ which just preceded, and “eblandita illa, non enucleata esse suffragia” Cic. Planc. 4.
[743, 744] These lines are among the hardest in Virg. The first sentence ‘Quisque—Manis’ has puzzled the commentators perhaps more than it would have done had they sufficiently remembered Virg.'s fondness for artificial phrases. The general meaning evidently is ‘Each spirit has its individual discipline.’ This Virg. has apparently chosen to express by saying ‘Each of us suffers his own Manes,’ the Manes, which appear to have been a sort of twofold genius belonging to each person (see on 4. 610), being regarded as separable from the person himself, and as subjecting him to inflictions: at the same time that Virg. probably intended to avail himself of other possible constructions, the cognate accusative, ‘Each suffers spiritual suffering,’ and the accusative of definition, ‘Each suffers as to his spirit.’ The suggestion that the Genius is meant is made by Serv., but it seems better not to regard it as exhausting the meaning of the passage, as the Manes or Genius elsewhere appear to stand for the deified individual, and their visitations, as in 4. 610, take effect not on the individual himself but on his enemies. We are also helped by the consideration that elsewhere in Virg. the infernal powers are spoken of loosely as ‘Manes’ (10. 39., 12. 646, G. 4. 489, 505), though it would be too much to infer from this with Cerda and others that ‘Manes’ here simply = ‘Furies,’ if it were only that the words so interpreted would be open to the objection made in the last sentence, the Furies of a person generally meaning not the Furies that punish a person, but those which, being his embodied curses, punish his enemies (see on 4. 384). It is true that there is a distinct instance where ‘Manes’ appears to be used for spiritual punishment, Stat. Theb. 8. 84, “At tibi quos, inquit, Manis?” but this proves no more than that Stat. there as elsewhere ventured on an experiment in language in imitation, as he thought, of Virg. Professor Munro, Journal of Philology, vol. 2, pp. 145, 146 says, “‘Quisque suos patimur Manis’ I am convinced means simply, ‘we put on, bear the burden, each one of us good or bad, of his own manes or garb of death,’ i.e. the shadowy semblance of one's living self which the dead spirit was supposed to assume at the funeral pile or elsewhere. This is illustrated by the old picture in the Vatican Virgil, and, as I think, by Sen. Hipp. 1226, ‘Donator atrae lucis, Alcide, tuum Diti remitte munus, ereptos mihi Restitue manis: inpius frustra invoco Mortem relictam.’” The difficulty of what follows is greater. The words are easy, but it is not easy to see the appropriateness of the sentence to the context. As they stand, they appear to speak of a second purgation as going on in Elysium, which is in itself not a very likely thing, while the change of person from ‘mittimur’ and ‘tenemus’ to ‘revisant’ v. 750 has still to be accounted for. Jahn, whose explanation is approved by Forb., supposes that all the shades are sent into Elysium after their purgation, but that while the greater part only pass through on their way to Lethe, a few, of whom Anchises is one, are allowed to remain there and complete a still higher purification, as a prelude to a new and glorious life on earth. This is probably as plausible an explanation as is likely to be suggested of the passage as it stands, but the inconsistencies of it lie on the surface. Elysium, as has been said above, is not a natural place for purgation; it is evidently the everlasting reward of a good life, not a place of temporary sojourn previous to a return to earth: there is nothing in vv. 741, 742, as compared with vv. 745—747, to show that the degree of purification contemplated in the latter is intended to be higher than that in the former: the ‘mille anni’ of v. 748 are plainly parallel to the ‘longa dies’ of v. 745; and it can hardly be meant that the more highly purified spirits return to earth without a draught of Lethe. A general view of the context seems to require, as Heyne and some of the early editors, and more lately Henry, have seen, that the souls which are purified and sent back to earth should be distinguished from the select few who are purified and established in Elysium, and this the change of person decidedly favours. The words ‘pauci—tenemus’ then, if not the previous clause, will refer to the latter, the whole of the following lines to the former, who, as being far the larger number, are spoken of as if they were the whole body. But this sense, though required by the context and favoured by the language, does not suit the order of the passage. Heyne and his contemporaries wished to get rid of the difficulty by transposing the two lines before us, which is Ribbeck's remedy; Henry thinks they are no more than an ordinary Virgilian parenthesis. The first suggestion appears to me as much too violent as the second is too lenient. The supposition of a confusion of the order introduced by the transcribers is at all times hazardous (see on G. 4. 203 —205), and is exposed to unusual suspicion here, as the lines would still look awkward if placed, where alone they could be placed, after v. 747, so that Heyne inclines to treat them as altogether spurious; while on the other hand, if Virg. intended no more than an ordinary parenthesis, it must be admitted that his sentence is exceedingly ill constructed. I think then that every thing points to the supposition, which at one time occurred to Heyne himself, that we have here one of the passages in the Aeneid (the case of the Georgics is different: see on G. 4. 203—205) which Virg. left unfinished. His whole conception of a metempsychosis seems, as I have said in the prefatory remarks to this book, to be really inconsistent with the general picture which he gives of the world of spirits, and so he naturally found a difficulty in harmonizing the two in Anchises' narrative. Had the Aeneid been a finished poem, the obstacle would doubtless have been surmounted so far as the mechanical structure of the present passage is concerned, but we should have felt it nevertheless in reading the Sixth Book. A doubt still remains whether ‘mittimur’ refers to the whole body of the departed, as ‘patimur’ evidently does, or to the few spoken of in the next clause. In the one case the meaning will be that the whole multitude is sent through Elysium, the greater part to drink the Lethe water and then return to life, the few to remain in Elysium: in the other, that the few are distributed among the spacious plains, a use of ‘per’ for which see on 1. 680. On the whole the former view seems to agree best with the language of these two lines, while any objection which may be raised to it from the language of vv. 748 foll., where Lethe seems to be introduced for the first time, is obviated by the consideration mentioned above, that the present passage as left by Virg. is not meant to cohere with the context. ‘Pauci —tenemus’ like “pauci—adnavimus” 1. 538.
[745] “Longa dies” 5. 783. The expression seems to be Virg.'s own, but Lucr. 1.557 has “longa diei infinita aetas.” ‘Perfecto temporis orbe’ is explained by v. 748.
[746] Rom. has ‘tabem,’ “nec hoc male,” says Heyne: but ‘labem’ is clearly better. ‘Relinquit’ (fragm, Vat., Med.) is restored by Wagn. after Jahn for ‘reliquit’ (Pal., Rom., Gud.).
[747] Aetherium—ignem, the “partem divinae mentis et haustus aetherios” of G. 4. 220. ‘Sensus’ is here the sentient power. It is a very favourite word with Lucr., but almost the only passage in him which illustrates the present is 5. 144, where he denies that natural objects are “divino praedita sensu.” An English reader may remember the disembodied Arvalan in Southey's Curse of Kehama, “all naked feeling and raw life.” ‘Aurai simplicis ignem:’ comp. vv. 204, 733 above and v. 762 below, and see on 1. 546, G. 4. 220. Med., Rom., and Pal. have ‘aurae:’ ‘aurai’ is found however in one of Ribbeck's cursives and (from a correction) in Gud. and another, possibly also in fragm. Vat. as corrected, and is acknowledged by Serv. on 7. 464 as one of the four instances in which Virg. has used this form of the genitive, the others being 7 l. c., 3. 354, and 9. 26, in the first and third of which there is also variety in the MSS. ‘Purum’ is doubtless meant to go with both ‘sensum’ and ‘ignem,’ but ‘simplicis’ is thrown in that we may not feel the want of it in the latter clause.
[748] Rotam volvere seems merely to express the completion of a period, as Serv. explains it, remarking, “est autem sermo Ennianus.” Comp. the use of “volvens” G. 2. 295, and see on 1. 9. Whether the revolution is one of the whole period, or, as ‘per’ might seem to show, of each successive year, it would perhaps be a refinement to inquire. The mention of a thousand years is probably suggested by the myth in Plato Rep. 10 p. 615 A, where those who have done wrong in life are punished through ten periods of a hundred years each, a hundred years being the estimated length of a life-time on earth, so that each criminal receives tenfold punishment, after which they are allowed to choose new lives, and each is made to drink of the river of Indifference (see on v. 715), as a preliminary to his new existence. Comp. also Plato Phaedr. p. 249, where the period is similarly given. In Pind. fr. 98 (Bergk ed. 1), quoted by Plato Meno p. 81, the return to earth takes place in the ninth year.
[749] Comp. vv. 714, 715. ‘Deus’ generally, like ὁ θεός or ὁ δαίμων, not, as Serv. says some take it, specially of Mercury. ‘Evocat’ from their place of discipline. “Agmine magno” G. 1. 381. Here it expresses the manner in which the spirits flock to the call, so that it qualifies not so much ‘evocat’ or ‘has omnis’ as a verbal notion supplied in thought. Serv. has a curious fancy that ‘agmine’ = ‘inpetu’ (see on 5. 211), which might be supported, were it worth while, by some points in the description of Plato Rep. 1. c.
[750] “Supera convexa” v. 241 above. Med. originally had ‘super,’ which Ribbeck adopts, as in vv. 241, 787., 7. 562.
[751] Anchises answers Aeneas' question vv. 719 foll., how those who had been set free from the body could wish to return to it. Perhaps it is best with the later editors to place no stop after ‘rursus,’ leaving it to be taken with both verbs, ‘revisant’ and ‘reverti.’ Gossrau has collected many instances where it is used with compounds of ‘re,’ such as “rursum redire” Ter. Adelph. 1. 1. 46., 4. 2. 40. Comp. v. 449 above. So πάλιν αὖθις, αὖθις αὖ.
[752-755] ‘They mount an eminence, which commands a view of those spirits destined to future life.’
