[192] Intus is generally taken as a preposition for “in:” but Hand 3. 447 cites no clear case of such a use of ‘intus.’ On the other hand ‘intus’ is frequently used with ‘in’ pleonastically, which rather excludes the idea of its being used for it. It seems best therefore to understand ‘templo’ as “in templo,” and to regard ‘intus’ as pleonastic. Munro on Lucr. 4.1091 cites the present passage along with several from Lucr. and one from Livy apparently as instances of ‘intus’ with abl.: but in all of them with the partial exception of the present ‘intus’ comes after its case, and may very well be understood adverbially. ‘Patria sede’ = “solio avito” v. 169. It is coupled by ‘que’ to ‘tali templo;’ or the whole clause ‘patria sedens’ is coupled with ‘tali templo,’ not unlike “extremus galeaque ima subsedit Acestes” 5. 498.
[193] Vocavit by a messenger. “Intra tecta vocari Inperat” v. 168.
[194] “Placido ore” 11. 251, of Diomed.
[195-211] ‘Latinus asks the Trojans what they want, offers them hospitality, and remembers that Dardanus, their deified ancestor, originally came from Italy.’
[195] Neque followed by “et” or “que” is not uncommon even in prose; Cic. 2 Cat. 13, “Perficiam ut neque bonus quisquam intereat, paucorumque poena vos omnes iam salvi esse possitis.” See Freund, ‘neque.’ It is not clear whether Latinus means that he had heard of Troy by fame, like Dido, or that he had heard that these strangers were the Trojans. In the latter case we must understand ‘advertitis aequore cursum’ rather widely, the thing meant being ‘ye have landed on our shores:’ though it is conceivable that news of their coming may have been received e. g. from Cumae. Comp. however v. 167. ‘Urbem et genus:’ comp. Dido's words 1. 565, “Quis genus Aeneadum, quis Troiae nesciat urbem?” ‘Auditi,’ heard of, like “audire magnos iam videor duces” Hor. 2 Od. 1. 21. ‘Aequore,’ over the sea, 5. 862. ‘Cursus,’ the reading before Heins., is found in none of Ribbeck's MSS.
[197] Virg. probably had in his eye the queries addressed to strangers on landing in Hom. Od. 3. 71 foll., 9. 257 foll., though he has, for obvious reasons, omitted the mention of piracy. ‘Quae caussa rates, aut cuius egentis vexit’ is a confused expression made up of “qua de caussa aut cuius egentes rates vectae sunt” and “quae caussa aut cuius egestas vexit.” Had critics dealt with the text of Virg. as they have dealt with that of the Greek dramatists, ‘egestas’ would doubtless have been substituted. ‘Cuius egentis’ asks more definitely what has been asked more generally by “quae caussa.”
[199] “Pelagine venis erroribus actus” 6. 532. ‘Errore viae,’ mistake of the way, like “errore locorum” 3. 181. Livy 24. 17 has “errore viarum.”
[200] Qualia multa is a translation of the Homeric phrase οἷά τε πολλά. Germ. cites Apoll. R. 4. 1556, which Virg. may have imitated, εἰ δέ τι τῆσδε πόρους μαίεσθ᾽ ἁλός, οἷά τε πολλὰ Ἄνθρωποι χατέουσιν ἐπ᾽ ἀλλοδαπῇ περόωντες.
[201] “Si quando Thybrim . . . . . intraro” 3. 501. ‘Portus’ of a landingplace in the mouth of a river. “Nilus . . . Per septem portus in maris exit aquas,” Ov. 2 Am. 13. 10, quoted by Forc.
[202] Comp. 11. 109, “qui nos fugiatis amicos?” ib. 113, “rex nostra reliquit hospitia,” said by Aeneas to the Latins. ‘Ignorate’ might mean ‘mistake their character:’ but it is better to understand “ne ignorate Latinos Saturni (esse) gentem,” like “scio me Danais e classibus unum” 3. 602. Med. has ‘nec fugite.’
[203] Saturni gentem seems to mean descendants of Saturn rather than the nation of Saturn. ‘Haud vinclo nec legibus’ is a hendiadys. The ablatives are instrumental or modal. ‘Haud—nec’ as in 1. 327., 3. 214, Hor. 1 Ep. 8. 4 foll. The picture is that of the golden or Saturnian age, Ov. M. 1. 89 foll.
[204] Virg. is here perhaps thinking of Hesiod, Ἔργα κ. Ἡ. 188 (of the golden age) οἱ δ᾽ ἐθελημοὶ Ἥσυχοι ἔργ᾽ ἐνέμοντο. ‘Se tenentem,’ that keeps itself from wrong, i. q. “se continentem.” There is perhaps an allusion to the common phrase “lege teneri.” ‘Veteris dei more,’ the rule of the golden age when Saturn reigned. Saturn is called ‘veteris’ as the god of the olden time. Comp. “Quis neque mos neque cultus erat” 8. 316, of the state of Italy before Saturn. It is not said that the Latins had no laws, which would be inconsistent with 8. 322, but that they were not virtuous for fear of law. But it may be better to acknowledge some inconsistency in the poet. With the whole passage comp. Livy's description of the time of Numa, 1. 21: “ut fides ac ius iurandum proximo (pro obnoxio Madv.) legum ac poenarum metu civitatem regerent.”
[205, 206] “Atque equidem Teucrum memini Sidona venire” 1. 619, where, as here, ‘atque’ expresses the appositeness of the remark. ‘Annis,’ by reason of years. Cerda comp. Ov. F. 6. 103, “obscurior aevo Fama.” Scaliger thought the sense was “Haud ita multi sunt anni, sed fama pervagata non est.” The dimness of the tradition accounts for the appeal to the Auruncan elders. The ‘Aurunci’ (or Ausones) were regarded as a primitive people, and identified with the Aborigines. The tradition was preserved only by the oldest men of the oldest race. ‘Ut’ is epexegetical of ‘ita.’ Cory. thus or Cortona being in Etruria, ‘his agris’ must be taken with some latitude.
[207] Penetravit, the reading before Heins., is restored by Ribbeck from Med., Pal., fragm. Vat. &c. for ‘penetrarit’ (Rom.). It is difficult to see how the indicative could be constructed, as it clearly does not come under the cases mentioned on E. 4. 52. Heyne, writing before these constructions were understood, thought it savoured of epic gravity. Possibly it might be explained in connexion with ‘ita:’ ‘the old men told the story agreeably with his having made his way’ &c.; but this would be harsh enough. The abbreviated form is constantly mistaken by transcribers, as Wagn. remarks. ‘Idaeas Phrygiae ad urbes’ substantially like “Bebrycia Amyci de gente” 5. 373, “Euboicas Cumarum oras” 6. 2, for “Phrygiae Idae urbes.”
[208] Samum is the reading of Ribbeck's MSS., except Med., which has ‘Samom.’ Others have ‘Samon,’ which Wagn. adopts, remarking (Q. V. 4) that Virg., though not consistent in his usage with respect to Greek names, generally prefers the Greek inflection in the case of islands. The island is called Σάμος Θρηϊκίη in Il. 13. 12. In Hdt. 2. 51 it is Σαμοθρηΐκη. We can hardly suppose Virg. not to have known that the two names were the same, though, if he did know it, the line seems very pointless. The ordinary legend was that Iasius settled in Samothracia (note on 3. 168): but Virg. here may mean to include him.
[209] Hinc is explained by ‘Corythi Tyrrhena ab sede;’ Latinus means that it was from Italian antecedents that he rose to be a god. ‘Hinc’ with ‘profectum’ probably, not with ‘accipit.’ For ‘Corythi’ see on 3. 170: for ‘Corythi Tyrrhena sede’ note on v. 207 just above.
[210] Stellantis, glittering with stars; not full of stars, which would be “stellatus.” Lucr. 4.212, “caelo stellante”. ‘Regia caeli’ G. 1. 503. With ‘solio accipit’ comp. “toro accipit” 8. 177, probably a local abl., like “gremio accipiet” 1. 685, though it may be modal.
[211] “Accipies caelo” (deification) 1. 290. On the other hand the deified person is said “deum vitam accipere” E. 4. 15. If the present is to be pressed, we may say that it expresses here the perpetuity of the divine life, perhaps also the daily feasting. ‘Numerum—addit:’ the reading before Heins. was ‘numerum— auget.’ He introduced ‘numero—addit’ from Gud. (originally), the object of ‘addit’ being understood to be ‘illum,’ Dardanus, who is added to the number of the gods by altars, i. e. by having altars raised to him. The editors since his time have generally preferred ‘numerum— addit,’ supposing it to be found in Rom., if not in Med., and explaining it ‘adds his number to (or, as some appear to have taken it, ‘adds number to,’ increases the number of) the altars of the gods.’ It now appears from Ribbeck that all the uncials (fragm. Vat, Med., Pal., Rom.) read ‘auget,’ and all ‘numerum,’ except perhaps Pal., which has ‘numerum’ altered into ‘numero.’ ‘Numerum—addit’ is the corrected reading of Gud., and is found in two other of Ribbeck's cursives. ‘Auget’ is no doubt the easier reading: yet without saying that it is to be distrusted on that account, we may still urge, what was urged when the MS. testimony for it was unknown, that it looks like a correction by some one who did not see that ‘divorum’ belonged to ‘altaribus,’ not to ‘numero;’ and it may further be questioned whether the addition of ‘altaribus,’ with altars built to him, when he has not been mentioned in the clause, is in the manner of Virg. ‘Novis altaribus,’ or any other similar epithet pointing indirectly to the person intended, would have been a different thing. ‘Numerum—addit,’ on the other hand, in the sense of ‘adds his number,’ or ‘adds him as an item’ (in prose “numerat illum inter divos qui altaria habent”), seems sufficiently Virgilian, though no one has supported this use of ‘numerus’ by anything nearer than “sideris in numerum” G. 4. 227, where see note. ‘Numero—addit’ would be a possible reading: but it is not easy to estimate its external authority, especially in our ignorance of the relation which Pal. bears to Gud., and ‘altaribus’ = “altaribus positis” would perhaps be a little harsh. Those who support ‘auget’ may quote Livy 1. 7, “Te (Herculem) mihi mater . . aucturum caelestium numerum cecinit, tibique aram hic dicatum iri.”
[212-248] ‘Ilioneus, as spokesman of the embassy, explains that the Trojans were come to ask leave to settle in their ancient country, and presents the gifts which Aeneas had sent.’
