[90] The suggestion of a dialogue between Juno and Venus is from Apoll. R. 3. 6 foll., a much longer passage, where Hera and Athene go to Aphrodite and beg her to inspire Medea with a passion for Jason. A hint too may have been taken from Hom. Il. 14, 188 foll. ‘Peste’ of Dido's passion 1. 712.
[91] Hera is called the φίλη ἄλοχος of Zeus Il. 15. 156, so that Wakef.'s ‘clara’ need not be considered. ‘Famam,’ her reputation, as in v. 170 below. Rom. and one or two others have ‘pudori.’
[92] Adgredi of speaking first 3. 358 &c.
[93] It may be doubted whether ‘vero’ = ‘sane,’ qualifying ‘egregiam’ ironically, or has an adversative force, giving abruptness and consequently liveliness to Juno's opening. ‘Nay, it is a splendid distinction that you are bearing away.’ ‘Ampla,’ brilliant, like “amplissimus triumphus” Nepos, Cato 1.
[94] The best MSS. give ‘numen;’ but others have ‘nomen,’ the reading of the early editions, which I prefer, as the simpler and more natural. Comp. 2. 583. ‘Nomen referre’ occurs in a somewhat similar sense 11. 688. The words are constantly confounded, as we shall see on 5. 768. Those who read ‘numen’ generally supply ‘est:’ ‘your divinity becomes great and renowned’—as we might sav, you will be worshipped more than ever. Thiel makes the words an apposition to ‘puerque tuus,’ which might be supported from Ov. M. 4. 452, “illa Sorores Nocte vocat genitas, grave et inplacabile numen.”
[95] The words are chosen so as to be as sarcastic as possible; the triumph is of two over one, of gods over a mortal, and that not even a man but a woman. ‘Si,’ ‘if, as I suppose is the case,’ the hypothetical form perhaps implying a slight sneer.
[96] Nec me adeo fallit is from Lucr. 1.922, where the word is ‘animi,’ not ‘adeo.’ ‘Adeo’ seems to answer to our colloquial expression ‘I am not so blind either,’ where if called upon to complete the phrase we should supply ‘as you think’ or ‘as I might be.’ Comp. E. 2. 25, “Nec sum adeo informis.” This, which is substantially Wund.'s view, seems better than with Forb. to understand ‘adeo’ as emphasizing ‘me.’ ‘Me of all others.’ ‘Moenia’ = ‘urbem.’ Wakef. reads ‘numina’ from one or two MSS. With the general sense comp. 1. 661, 671.
[97] Domos as implying hospitality. ‘Karthaginis altae’ below v. 265. The epithet need be no more than one of the perpetual Homeric sort: but there is force in mentioning the grandeur of Carthage here. ‘You feel that though Carthage is a fine city, and throws open its houses freely, you have a right to be jealous nevertheless.’
[98] “Ecquis erit modus” E. 10. 28. For ‘certamine tanto’ almost all subsequent editors have adopted ‘certamina tanta,’ the conj. of Heins., which would introduce a more usual construction, and might be supported by 9. 143, where the MSS. are divided between “discrimina parva” and “discrimine parvo.” But I believe the ablative to be as admissible as the accusative in this construction, though it is apparently very rare. The only undoubted instance of it I have met with is in the Pseudo-Donatus' Life of Virg. § 61, where a parody on the first line of E. 1 is quoted, “Tityre, si toga calda tibi est, quo tegmine fagi” (“tegmina” conj. Heins.: but the parodist would naturally keep as close as he could to Virg.'s word). In Hor. 1 Ep. 5. 12, the best and most numerous MSS. give “Quo mihi fortuna si non conceditur uti?” and in Ov. 3 Am. 4. 41 one MS. has “Quo tibi formosa?” In expressions of this sort the MSS. are apt to vary considerably, as will be seen by consulting the various readings on the two passages just quoted: “quid” is substituted for “quo,” and the nominative for the acc. or abl.; e.g. “quo fortuna mihi?” “quo formosa tibi?” Thus when in Sen. N. Q. 1. 16 the MSS. are found to vary between “Quo nequitiam meam” and “quo nequitia mea,” or in Mart. 5. 53. 2 between “Quo tibi vel Nioben, Basse, vel Andromachen,” and “Niobe . . . Andromache,” it is not clear whether we are to understand “nequitia,” “Niobe,” “Andromache” as intended for nom. or abl. I think then there is no reason for departing here from a reading which is found in all MSS., especially when we consider the infinitely few instances in which the combined testimony of those MSS. has been generally admitted to be in error. How the abl. is to be explained is another and a difficult question: but I suppose ‘quo’ to be = “quid opus,” which is itself, it should be remembered, used in other constructions than that with the abl. Wakef. explains “quo tenditis cum tanto certamine?” Gossrau makes an aposiopesis “ne mali ominis vocabula proferrentur,” the suppressed words being “exercemus inimicitias.” I am glad to see that Mr. Munro in the introduction to his recent recension of the text of Horace seems to consider the construction with the abl. satisfactorily established.
[100] Exercere pacem may be comp. with “exercere inimicitias,” “iurgia,” “discordias,” “simultates” (see Forc.), ‘exercere hymenaeos’ with “exercere choros” 1. 499.
[101] Serv. explains ‘traxit furorem’ on the analogy of “spiritum trahere:” Forb. cites Ov. M. 4. 675, “Vidit Abantiades . . . trahit inscius ignis,” of Perseus catching love from the sight of Andromeda. But ‘per ossa’ seems to show that the chief notion present to Virg.'s mind was that of length or extension, the flame coursing through the bones, ‘trahere’ being used as a strong poetical expression for “tractim sentire.” Comp. G. 3. 258, “Quid iuvenis magnum cui versat in ossibus ignem Durus amor?”
[102] Communem is a predicate, and so is coupled with ‘paribus auspiciis,’ expressing how Juno and Venus are to govern Carthage. In ‘paribus auspiciis’ the reference is to the phrase “auspicia habere,” which signifies that Roman magistrates alone during their time of office had authority to take the auspices, so that the words here mean no more than ‘with joint authority.’ The words are repeated 7. 256, “paribusque in regna vocari Auspiciis,” where they are to be constructed with ‘regna’ rather than with ‘vocari’—‘to be called by fate to an equal share of empire.’ Lersch (Antiqq. Vergg. pp. 4, 5) rightly calls attention to the parallel between the proposed union of Carthage and Troy here and that nearly consummated between Latium and Troy in Book 12, suggesting that Virg. took the hint from the legendary union of the Sabines and the Romans. Serv. seems quite wrong in supposing the reference here to be magistrates appointed by equal auspices such as the consuls.
[103] Serv. calls attention to the sneer conveyed by ‘servire’ and ‘Phrygio,’ observing on the latter “ac si diceret exsuli.” He may also be right in supposing a reference to marriage by “coemptio” (Dict. Ant. ‘Marriage, Roman’) in ‘servire.’
[104] So Dido in Ov. Her. 7. 149 (evidently modelled on Virg.), “Hos potius populos in dotem, ambage remissa, Accipe, et advectas Pygmalionis opes.” ‘Permittere dextrae’ on the analogy of “permittere fidei,” ‘potestati’ &c. Venus is said to receive into her power what Aeneas, her son, receives; and there may also be a notion, as Wund. thinks, of Venus becoming a tutelary goddess of Carthage.
[105-114] ‘Venus, perceiving that it was a plot to transfer the predicted empire to Carthage, signifies her willing acquiescence, but doubts whether Jupiter will agree, and advises Juno to persuade him.’
