[105] Tum vero emphatic, as in E. 6. 27, A. 1. 485. ‘Ardemus’ with inf. 1. 515, 581., 4. 281. The words themselves do not imply that they actually questioned him, though the context does. ‘Scitari,’ as well as ‘quaerere,’ goes with ‘caussas.’ Ov. M. 2. 511, “caussamque viae scitantibus infit.” Pal. originally has ‘casus.’
[106] Pelasgae: see on 1. 624, where it should have been mentioned that the epithet Pelasgic is applied to Argos Il. 2. 681, and associated with Dodona Il. 16. 233, so that Mr. Gladstone's statement (vol. iii. pp. 516, 517) is a little overstrained. See Dic. G. ‘Pelasgi.’
[107] Prosequitur, G. 3. 340, where an object is supplied. ‘Ficto pectore fatur,’ like “pollenti pectore carmen condere,” Lucr. 5.1, “divino cecinerunt pectore,” Catull. 62 (64). 383.
[110, 111] Fecissentque utinam parenthetical, like “mansissetque utinam fortuna,” 3. 615. ‘Fecissent’ is used idiomatically to express the general result of ‘moliri’ and ‘discedere:’ comp. 1. 58, E. 2. 44. ‘Saepe,’ as often; referring to ‘saepe,’ v. 108. ‘Ponti:’ we might have expected ‘ponto,’ but the MSS. give no variation, except that one of the later has ‘portum,’ as a correction, which might possibly point to ‘illis—pontum.’ Serv. explains ‘ponti hiemps’ as distinguished from “hiemps temporis” (“hiemps anni,” Suet. Caes. 35): and so the genitive is put with “hiemps” in other writers to denote that the word is used analogically, “hiemps montis,” Stat. Silv. 3. 5. 73, “rerum,” Claud. Bell. Get. 151, “amoris,” Ov. Her. 5. 34. Here it seems most natural to interpret ‘the stormy state of the deep,’ like “hiemat mare,” Hor. 2 Sat. 2. 17 (Macleane's note), not exactly ‘the stormy season,’ like “pelago desaevit hiemps,” 4. 52, which could not have come unforeseen on the Greeks, much less the winter, though the expression in 3. 285 rather resembles the present line. ‘Euntis,’ not for ‘ituros,’ as Forb., but a rhetorical exaggeration.
[112] Hic the pronoun, not the adverb, v. 150, “molem hanc equi.” ‘Contextus:’ see on v. 16. ‘Acernis’ need not be pressed against “abiete,” v. 16, or “pinea claustra,” v. 258. See note on v. 577, and Introduction, p. 10.
[113] Sonuerunt nimbi, in prose, “nimbi et tonitrus orti sunt.”
[114] Eurypylus, Il. 2. 736. ‘Scitantem,’ the present part. used as in 1. 519., 11. 101, is the reading of Pal. and the great majority of the MSS., followed by Wagn. and later editors. Heins. and Heyne had restored ‘scitatum’ on the authority of Med., where however the reading was originally ‘scitantum.’ Pomponius Sabinus has a strange note, “scitatum, non si tantum,” from which it may be argued either that Apronianus, whom he generally follows, finding ‘scitantum,’ had conceived that it could only stand for ‘si tantum’ or ‘scitatum,’ or that ‘si tantum’ was actually an old reading, which again would point to ‘scitantem’ as the original word. Serv. however mentions both readings. Not much help is to be derived from internal considerations, as while an ignorant copyist might be puzzled with the supine, a more instructed one might find a difficulty in the present participle; and so some inferior MSS. cut the knot by reading ‘scitari.’ ‘Oracula Phoebi:’ there is nothing to fix the oracle intended, whether Delphi, Delos, Patara, or Chrysa. In Hom. of course Calchas is the only interpreter of the divine will, and in Aeschylus he resolves the difficulty at Aulis.
[116] Sanguine et virgine caesa, hendiadys, which is expressed v. 118 by two clauses.
[117] Venistis: the sacrifice of course was before the arrival; but we need not press the words, which merely mean “adventu vestro.”
[118] ‘And the sacrifice, to be propitious, must be of an Argive life.’ “Farre litabo,” Pers. 2. 75.
[120] Animi appears to be the reading of all the MSS., but ‘animis’ found its way into some of the later editions, and was adopted by Heyne without inquiry. In itself either would do: comp. 8. 530., 9. 123, with 5. 404. Perhaps ‘animi’ suggests too definitely a verbal contrast between ‘aures,’ ‘animi,’ and ‘ossa:’ but Virg. may have meant this. I have sometimes thought that ‘animi’ might = ‘animis,’ being constructed as in the passages referred to on v. 61; but the existence of expressions like “conversi animi” above v. 73, “cecidere animi” 3. 260, “concussi animi” 9. 498, is against this. ‘Gelidusque per ima cucurrit Ossa tremor,’ 6. 54., 12. 447.
[121] Cui fata parent, a clause dependent on ‘tremor,’ the shuddering surmise being expressed by an indirect question. ‘Fata,’ the oracle, 1. 386. ‘Parent,’ ‘ordain:’ the word appears to be specially used of divine ordinance ( Plaut. Mil. 3. 1. 132, “Aequum fuit, deos paravisse, ne omnes uno exemplo vitam viverent,” Lucan 2. 68., 6. 783), a fact which may account for the omission of an acc. here; possibly also, as Wagn. thinks, the omission may be rhetorical, to produce a sense of horror. The passages in Lucan at any rate show that he took ‘fata’ as the nom. ‘Poscat:’ Hor. 1 Od. 4. 12, “seu poscat agnam.”
[122] Hic, at this crisis, 1. 728. ‘Magno tumultu’ is said of Ulysses, not of the multitude, like “magnis Ithaci clamoribus,” v. 128. Comp. the imitation of Stat. Ach. 1. 493, and the oratorical terms in Greek, θορυβεῖν, ταράττειν, κυκᾶν. For the conception of Ulysses as a boisterous demagogue comp. Eur. Iph. A. 528 foll. Hom. dwells on the vehemence of his oratory, Il. 3. 221, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δή ῤ̔ ὄπα τε μεγάλην ἐκ στήθεος ἵει καὶ ἔπεα νιφάδεσσιν ἐοικότα χειμερίῃσιν, though he plays no such vulgar part in Iliad or Odyssey. Virg. may have been thinking of the μεγάλοι θόρυβοι of Soph. Aj. 142, which there however seem to be the clamours of the army caused by the whispers of Ulysses.
[123] Numina, ‘will.’ Perhaps there is a reference to its original sense of “nutus,” so that ‘quae sint numina’ may be equivalent to “quem di innuant.” Such at any rate must be the general meaning, the question being to whom the oracle pointed. See on 1. 133. Lachmann's denial (on Lucr. 2.632, where he reads ‘momine’ for the ‘numine’ of the MSS.) that ‘numen’ can ever = ‘nutus,’ is contradicted, I think, by Catull. 62 (64). 204, “Adnuit invicto caelestum numine rector, Quo tunc et tellus atque horrida contremuerunt Aequora.” (And so Prof. Munro.)
[124] Flagitat is in keeping with ‘magno tumultu,’ ‘insists on knowing;’ and the omission of the copula also expresses vehemence. ‘Canere,’ like ‘augurare,’ of ordinary anticipation. “Huius tantae dimicationis vatem Q. Fabium haud frustra canere solitum, graviorem in sua terra futurum hostem Hannibalem,” Livy 30. 28.
[125] Artificis scelus, 11. 407 in a different sense. ‘Taciti’ is not strictly consistent with ‘canebant;’ but Virg. probably means that the forebodings were privately whispered, not openly expressed, for fear of Ulysses.
[126] Statius, in an obvious imitation of this passage, Theb. 3. 570 foll., 619 foll., has the words “atra sede tegi,” “clausus,” “elicior tenebris,” showing, as Henry remarks, that he understood ‘tectus’ here literally, ‘shut up in his tent.’ Comp. 7. 600, “saepsit se tectis,” where Latinus shuts himself up; ib. 618, “caecis se condidit umbris.” So when Tiresias refuses to speak, Soph. O. T. 320, he says ἄφες μ᾽ ἐς οἴκους. Otherwise there would be no objection to the rendering ‘secret’ or ‘cautious.’
[127] “Opponere, obiicere, destinare.” Serv. “Aequius huic Turnum fuerat se opponere morti,” 11. 115.
[129] Conposito, by concert, seems to show that Calchas' reluctance was feigned, to give better effect to his disclosure. ‘Rumpit vocem’ (ῥηγνύναι φωνήν), 3. 246., 4. 553., 11. 377—here probably with the notion of breaking silence. ‘Destinat,’ ‘dooms,’ as is shown by the addition of the dative: not ‘points out,’ as Wagn. explains it.
[131] Tulere, “passi sunt,” Ruaeus. ‘Acquiesced in turning on one poor wretch the fate which each feared for himself.’ But there is much to be said for the other view, as explained by Henry, ‘turned and carried to my destruction.’
[133] Salsae fruges, Dict. A. ‘Sacrificium,’ where the “mola” is treated as identical with the οὐλοχύται, contrary to Voss's opinion on E. 8. 82, referred to by Forb.
[134] Eripui has a logical, though not a grammatical relation to ‘Iamque dies infanda aderat:’ in prose, ‘at last, seeing the fatal day had already arrived, I made my escape.’ So 3. 356—8, “Iamque dies alterque dies processit et aurae Vela vocant tumidoque inflatur carbasus Austro; His vatem adgredior dictis ac talia quaeso.” ‘At last, seeing day after day was slipping by, and everything favourable for sailing, I seek an interview with Helenus.’ ‘Fateor,’ a hypocritical apology, ‘as if it were a crime to save his life,’ Trapp. ‘Vincula rupi,’ the bonds with which the victim when brought up to the altar was fastened till the moment of striking the blow. That he was actually led up to the altar appears from v. 156, unless we take ‘gessi’ there with Serv. as a rhetorical exaggeration. The general sense seems to be ‘they were in the act of getting ready the sacrifice, the salt cakes, and the fillet for my brow (“quae circum tempora essent”), when I broke away.’ The image of a victim escaping at the moment of sacrifice is not an uncommon one. Forb. quotes Sil. 16. 264, a description which seems taken partly from the present passage, partly from v. 223.
[135] Obscurus in ulva is to be taken together, screened by the sedge, explaining how he came to be concealed in the marsh—a possible reference to the story of Marius, as Serv. suggests.
[136] Heyne altered the pointing, ‘dum vela, darent si forte, dedissent,’ but the order of the words and the rhythm of the line are so strongly against him, that the poet would in that case have been guilty of an inexcusable ambiguity. ‘Dum vela darent’ is ‘while they might be setting sail,’ to give them time to set sail, the subj. being used to show the logical relation of the clause to the verb preceding it. See note on G. 4. 457. ‘Si forte dedissent’ cannot stand, as Wagn. supposes, for “si forte daturi essent.” The explanation of other passages to which he applies his hypothesis has been given on v. 94. ‘Si forte tulisset,’ v. 756, suggests a better interpretation, in the hope, or on the peradventure that they would have sailed, of which of course there would be a doubt, as the necessary condition had not been fulfilled. An inconsistency will still remain between ‘darent’ and ‘dedissent,’ the one implying that Sinon waited while they were getting off, the other that he trusted to their having got off before his waiting was over; but this is hardly an objection, if indeed the confusion might not be said to have a dramatic propriety. Virg. probably thought of Il. 2. 794, δέγμενος ὁππότε ναῦφιν ἀφορμηθεῖεν Ἀχαιοί.
[137] Antiquam, an epithet of affection, not used, as in 4. 633, to distinguish the country of his birth from that of his sojourn. Comp. Soph. O. T. 1394, “τὰ πάτρια Λόγῳ παλαιὰ δώμαθ᾽”.
[138] Dulcis natos: Serv. mentions a reading ‘duplicis,’ which is found in Pal. originally and Ribbeck adopts it. But the enumeration would be jejune, and the epithet ‘dulcis’ is tender and natural. Comp. 4. 33, G. 2. 523. ‘Natos’ presents a difficulty from the age of Sinon, who is said to have been sent to the war “primis ab annis,” v. 87 (note). The notion that Virg. intentionally makes Sinon contradict himself is not to be thought of; while Henry's interpretation ‘the sons and the father,’ i. e. my father and his sons, is equally impossible, and not to be defended from 4. 605., 6. 116, where the context at once fixes the sense. Had there been any object in reading ‘exoptatamque,’ we might have explained ‘parentem’ with reference to ‘natos;’ but the reverse process in a context like this is not so easy. Either we must suppose an oversight, or say that Sinon, though sent out early (the time, as remarked in note on v. 87, being probably fixed with reference to the Roman age for service), may yet have been married.
[139] Fors et is the reading of Med., Pal., and Gud., supported by Serv., who explains it “forte et poenas,” and says that others join ‘forset,’ as ‘forsit’ or ‘forsitan,’ a variety which of course offers a further confirmation. Heyne supposes ‘et’ to have arisen from “at,” the old way of writing the common reading ‘ad,’ which is recognized by Pomponius; but in the absence of a more ancient authority it seems more probable that ‘ad’ was introduced from the parallel passage 8. 495, “Regem ad supplicium communi Marte reposcunt,” to avoid the difficulty of the original text. But “ad” and “et” are confused elsewhere, as in v. 781 below, and perhaps in Catull. 11. 11, “Gallicum Rhenum horribilisque et ultimosque Britannos” (so MS. Dresd.; the oldest copies omit “et”), where all perplexity would be removed by reading “Gallicum Rhenum horribilem usque ad ultimosque Britannos.” Wagn. and Forb., who read ‘et,’ take ‘poenas’ in apposition with ‘quos,’ comp. 6. 20; there however the structure of the sentence gives more scope for such a construction, which here could only be explained by reference to the use of ποινὰς in Greek. Had Virg. intended a Grecism, we should probably have other instances of the kind in his imitators, such as Silius, who in 1. 677 has “poscendum poenae iuvenem.” There seems no objection to the double acc. after ‘reposco,’ which is found 7. 606, for Burm.'s remark, adopted by Heyne, that the demand was one not from, but of the family of Sinon, is equally good against the expression ‘poscere’ or ‘repetere poenas ab aliquo,’ which it is needless to say is used where the person's own life is the satisfaction demanded. ‘Fors et’ is found 11. 50, Hor. 1 Od. 28. 31 &c., and is doubtless to be explained as an archaic expression, ‘it may be and’ = ‘it may be that:’ see below on v. 692.
[140] “Nefas quae triste piaret,” below v. 184.
[141] Quod is usual in adjurations, 6. 363, Hor. 1 Ep. 7. 94, Ter. And. 1. 5. 54. Grammatically it is of course the cognate or adverbial acc. after ‘oro;’ but we need not therefore take ‘miserere,’ &c. as epexegetical of it, which is the view of Gossrau, comp. 10. 903., 12. 819; as it may equally well stand for “quam ob rem,” and in the other passages where it is used, as here, it comes in after a sentence supplying the considerations on which the petition is based. ‘Veri,’ of truth, not, as Thiel thinks, of justice and right dealing, such as Sinon expects from the Trojans. Henry can hardly be right in separating it from ‘conscia.’
[142] Si qua est instead of an acc. 4. 317., 6. 459., 12. 56. Forb. also comp. Soph. Phil. 469, “πρός τ᾽ εἴ τί σοι κατ᾽ οἶκόν ἐστι προσφιλές”. ‘Restat:’ Heins. restored ‘restet,’ the corrected reading of Med., found also in Pal., Gud., and other MSS., and sanctioned by Serv.; and Wagn. supports it by a reference to v. 536, “si qua est caelo pietas, quae talia curet.” ‘Restet’ alone however would have no meaning as expressing a purpose; and to connect ‘restet’ with ‘intemerata’ would injure the rhythm. ‘Si qua est, quae restat’ appears to be a pleonasm, not unlike that in 6. 367, “si qua via est, si quam tibi diva creatrix Ostendit.” Med. (first reading) and others also read ‘unquam:’ but see 1. 604.
[143] Fides: see on v. 541 below, “iura fidemque Supplicis erubuit.”
[144] With ‘animi non digna ferentis,’ comp. 5. 751, “animos nil magnae laudis egentis,” where, as here, it is identified with a person. It would be possible to separate ‘animi’ from ‘ferentis’ and construct it with ‘miserere’ (see on 6. 332); but this is not likely.
[145-198] ‘We pity him, and Priam bids him explain the design of the Greeks in building the horse. He vows fidelity to us, and declares that the horse is an offering to Pallas in exchange for the Palladium, and that by accepting it we may strike a fatal blow at our enemies. We, alas! believe him.’
