[472] Classem velis aptare like “biremis remigio aptat” 8. 80. Anchises takes the same part as in v. 9 above.
[473] Vento ferenti: see on G. 2. 311. “Facere moram alicui” for delaying a person has already occurred E. 10. 11, 12, so that the expression here is parallel to that in v. 481 below (note).
[474] Multo compellat honore: “honor verborum” occurs Tac. H. 4. 4. Agric. 40.
[475] The MSS. are divided between ‘Anchise’ and ‘Anchisa,’ as are the early grammarians. Reason would seem to be in favour of the former, the Greek vocative, as against the latter, the Latin vocative, which would naturally have the ‘a’ short, like ‘Atrida’ Hor. 2 S. 3. 187. Those who support ‘a’ here explain it as the Doric form of the Greek vocative, which seems arbitrary. Where however there is so much external authority for a form, it would be hazardous to assume on internal grounds that Virg. could not have used it, though I still think it safer to read ‘Anchise.’ In 6. 126, 348 the preponderance of MS. authority is very decidedly for “Anchisiade.”
[476] Cura deum is exemplified by what follows. For Anchises' first escape comp. 2. 642.
[477] Helenus points to the coast of Italy in the direction of Epirus: in this verse however he is thinking of Italy generally: in the next ‘hanc’ is used specially of that particular part which lies nearest. “Arripere tellurem” occurs again 10. 298 of gaining the shore. Comp. also 9. 13., 11. 531.
[478] Et tamen, as if he were correcting himself. For the sense see above vv. 396 foll.
[479] Pandit of oracular declaration, as in v. 252 above.
[481] ‘Why do I delay the rising gales?’ is a poetical variety for ‘why do I delay you from sailing while the wind is favourable?’ See on v. 473. For ‘demoror’ comp. 2. 647 note.
[482] Digressus of departure, v. 492, each going his own way.
[483] Ascanio of course belongs to this as well as to the next clause. ‘Subtemen’ properly means the woof, while ‘Phrygia chlamys’ is an embroidered mantle (Forc. s. v. ‘Phrygiones’), so that a doubt has been raised whether the ‘vestes’ and the ‘chlamys’ are meant to be distinguished as tapestry and needlework, or to be classed together as embroidery, ‘subtemen’ being used vaguely of thread. Wagn. thinks the latter the more probable view, referring to Sil. 7. 39, “acu subtemen fulvo.” ‘Picturatas’ i. q. ‘pictas.’ Lucr. 2.35 has “textilibus picturis.”
[484] The difficulty of the words ‘nec cedit honori’ is well known. Serv. and Donatus suppose the meaning to be that Andromache does not yield to the honour of Ascanius, does not give him less than his due. Heyne, that Andromache does not yield to the liberality of her husband. Wagn. thinks that ‘chlamys’ is the subject of ‘cedit,’ the mantle does not yield to the beauty of the other embroidered robes. Others have adopted ‘honore,’ the reading of Pal., Gud. a m. pr., and another MS., which Serv. mentions as approved by Scaurus. Sil. 12. 412 has “nec cedet honore Ascraco famave seni,” but the general sense is not very parallel. Retaining ‘honori,’ I would suggest that the words may possibly mean, “nor does she flag in the work of honouring him,” give way to honour, as if she were contending with it,—a poetical equivalent to the prosaic “nec cessat honorare,” as in Hom. we might have οὐδὲ κάμεν τίουσα. I do not remember any precisely parallel expression in Virg. or elsewhere: but the language, so interpreted, seems admissible in itself and suited to the context (comp. ‘onerat’ immediately following).
[485] Henry understands ‘onerat,’ loads by putting them on his shoulders, comp. Ter. Phorm. 5. 6. 4, “humerum hunc onero pallio:” but it seems simpler to suppose the reference to be merely to the abundance of the presents. “Oneravit limina donis” occurs 10. 620.
[486] Et haec is probably to be explained with reference to the gifts of Helenus to Anchises: though we might understand it as said by Andromache after she had already given part of the presents to Ascanius. The passage is imitated from Od. 15. 125 foll., where Helen gives a robe to Telemachus, with the words Δῶρόν τοι καὶ ἐγώ, τέκνον φίλε, τοῦτο δίδωμι, Μνῆμ᾽ Ἑλένης χειρῶν, so that Virg. may have used ‘accipe et haec’ loosely, from a recollection of Homer. With ‘manuum . . . amorem’ comp. 5. 538, 572, “monumentum et pignus amoris.”
[487] Longum closely connected with ‘testentur,’ ‘may long be a record of affection,’ though the word is still to be understood as an epithet of ‘amorem.’
[488] Hectoreae 2. 543 note. ‘Tuorum,’ of us, your kinsfolk.
[489] “‘Super’ quae superes” (Heyne), a use analogous to the Greek combination of an adverb with the article. The sense is unmistakable, in spite of the objections of Gossrau. “Solus” is joined with “superabat” 5. 519, with “superstes” Ov. M. 1. 351.
[490] So Menelaus of Telemachus' resemblance to Ulysses Od. 4. 149, Κείνου γὰρ τοιοίδε πόδες, τοιαίδε τε χεῖρες, Ὀφθαλμῶν τε βολαί, κεφαλή τ᾽, ἐφύπερθέ τε χαῖται. ‘Ferre’ of ordinary movement, like “magna se mole ferebat” 8. 199.
[491] Heyne comp. Eur. Ion 354, σοὶ ταὐτὸν ἥβης, εἴπερ ἦν, εἶχ᾽ ὒν μέτρον, which Virg. may have imitated, though his undoubted imitations of passages in Greek tragedy are so few that mere similarity of expression is not in itself a proof of imitation.
[492-505] ‘I bade them both farewell, contrasting their permanent condition with my unsettlement, and hoping that our respective posterities might always remain brother Trojans in heart.’
[493] Vivite felices Tibull. 3. 5. 31. Helenus and Andromache are congratulated on having their fortune accomplished, i. e. on having done with chance and change. Here, as in the next line, fortune and fate are looked upon not as the constituents of human life, but as disturbing agencies. Or we may say that Helenus and Andromache are spoken of as having attained while living the happiness which in general is only predicated of the dead, and so comp., with Forb., 4. 653, “Vixi, et quem cursum dederat Fortuna peregi;” Lucan 4. 361, “turba haec sua fata peregit.” ‘Est’ is used rather than ‘sit,’ which we might have expected, as Virg. chooses to describe their condition rather than expressly assign a reason for their happiness. For ‘sua,’ “vestra” would have been more strictly correct: but the third person generalizes the proposition— ‘you are persons who have accomplished their destiny.’ Cerda and others punctuate ‘Vivite! Felices quibus’ &c., an ingenious way of getting rid of the harshness of expression, but less like Virg.'s manner.
[495] Parta 2. 784. ‘Maris aequor arandum’ 2. 780.
[496] Comp. 5. 629., 6. 61. Here, as Forb. thinks, Aeneas may specially refer to Helenus' intimation that they are not to land on that part of Italy which lies immediately before them.
[499] For ‘fuerit’ Med., Pal., Gud., and others have ‘fuerint,’ which might be understood of ‘auspicia;’ but ‘fuerit’ is neater and better, and the error explains itself. ‘Minus obvia’ merely means less accessible, as we might say, lying less directly on the road from Greece.
[500] ‘Thybridis,’ with ‘vicina,’ which is constructed both with gen. and dat.: see Forc.
[501] Data: see above, v. 255.
[502] The early copyists and editors misunderstood the sentence, not seeing that the apodosis began at ‘cognatas.’ Thus some MSS., and probably Serv., give ‘cognatasque,’ while ‘Epiro’ was supposed to refer to ‘propinquos,’ ‘Hesperia’ being relegated to the following clause. The sense is, we will make the kindred nations one Troy in mind. All that Aeneas need mean by this expression is an engagement of amity and alliance: but Virg. is likely enough to have intended a special reference to some historical relations between Rome and Epirus, and the words ‘maneat nostros ea cura nepotes’ are too pointed to be passed over lightly. Such relations have been found by the commentators in the founding of Nicopolis by Octavianus (Serv.), and the establishment of a Roman colony in Buthrotum (Forb.). The former seems more likely to have been intended, as the event was recent, and the compliment one which Virg. would be glad to pay, while the transaction itself would be more flattering to the national vanity of the Epirotes, who were spoken of, Serv. tells us, in the charter of the city as kinsmen of the Romans, than the mere establishment of a Roman colony among them. ‘Olim’ may go with ‘cognatas,’ kinsmen of old: but it is perhaps better to take it with ‘faciemus,’ we will one day form. ‘Propinquos’ may be explained either like ‘cognatos’ of relationship, or of actual proximity.
[503] Epiro and ‘Hesperia’ must be taken as local ablatives. Med., Gud. a m. pr., and others read ‘Hesperiam,’ which the commentators regard as unintelligible, except in pointing to an original variant ‘Epirom, Hesperiam.’ But ‘Epiro Hesperiam’ might very well be understood ‘Epiro (cognatam et propinquam) Hesperiam,’ so as to produce the same sense as if both nouns had been put into the accusative. Viewed in this way, the reading is very plausible, as it is not easy to see how it can have arisen, while it is sufficiently recondite to present temptations to a tampering transcriber. ‘Hesperia’ however was read by Serv. Meanwhile ‘Epirum’ is actually found in one MS.
[504] Idem casus, as we should say, the same history. Both had shared in the great national tragedy of the sack of Troy, and in the subsequent expatriation of the Trojans. ‘Utramque’ refers back to ‘cognatas urbes.’
[505] “‘Animis,’ hoc est, foedere et affectione, quoniam revera eas natura non sinit iungi.” Serv. The word is to be taken with ‘faciemus’ rather than with ‘unam,’ though the expression may be illustrated by the compound ‘unanimus.’ For ‘maneat—nepotes,’ which Serv. explains as thrown in “quoniam occurrebat humanae brevitas vitae,” see on v. 502.
[506-520] ‘We set sail: night comes on: we land, and sleep till midnight, when we are aroused by Palinurus our pilot, and put to sea again.’
