[315] Locum capiunt: they take their ground. The race seems merely to have been from point to point in a straight line, so that probably it did not signify in what order they stood. Thus there is no choice of ground, to be determined by lot, as in v. 132.
[316] Corripiunt spatia G. 3. 104 note. ‘Spatia’ here merely denotes the extent of the course, which, as we have seen, was probably not a circular one. ‘Limen,’ the starting-point, what in the Roman circus would be called the ‘alba linea’ or ‘calx.’ The use of the word seems to be only a poetical metaphor of Virg.'s own.
[317] Effusi v. 145 above. ‘Nimbo similes,’ as being a confused mass. “Insequitur nimbus peditum” 7. 793. There is probably no reference to a cloud of dust, as in the chariot-race in G. 3. 110 “fulvae nimbus arenae Tollitur,” as here they seem to have run on the grass. ‘Simul ultima signant:’ “intuentes et notantes ultima spatia, id est finem cursus, aviditate vincendi: et deest ‘visu,’ ut Cicero, ‘notat et designat oculis.’” Serv., followed by most commentators. The ellipse however is harsh, and scarcely to be defended from 2. 423, “ora sono discordia signant:” and the parallel Il. 23. 757, Στὰνδὲ μεταστοιχεί, σήμηνε δὲ τέρματ᾽ Ἀχιλλεύς, might suggest another interpretation, the indication of the goal by a line drawn or some other means. The subject of ‘signant’ then would have to be understood from the context, ‘those whose business it was.’ We might have expected ‘signat:’ but Aeneas was standing near the starting-place, and so could not be at the goal. This view seems to be as old as Donatus, “designabant locum qui finem cursibus daret,” and was once supported by Henry, who has now apparently abandoned it. Forb. objects that the goal ought to be marked out before the start, not simultaneously. This difficulty might be removed by understanding ‘simul’=‘simul—atque;’ but this would be weak in so spirited a passage, so that it would be better to say that either for the sake of variety or to give a greater notion of the rapidity of the proceeding, Virg. represents the line of the goal as being drawn at the very instant at which the competitors start. Those who adhere to the old interpretation may comp. Nestor's advice to Antilochus, Il. 23. 323, where ἀεὶ τέρμ᾽ ὁρόων is said of a good charioteer.
[318] Abit, as we should say, gets away from the rest, like “effugit” v. 151. “Nisus abit” 9. 386. ‘Corpora:’ see on 2. 18. The word here is intended to give the picture of bodies flying through the air.
[319] The thunderbolt is actually represented on coins with wings. Heyne.
[320] Taubm. quotes the very same words from Cic. Brut. 47, “Duobus summis, Crasso et Antonio, L. Philippus proxumus accedebat, sed longo intervallo tamen proxumus.” Heyne comp. Hor. 1 Od. 12. 19, where after saying of Jupiter “Nec viget quicquam simile aut secundum” the poet proceeds “Proxumos illi tamen occupavit Pallas honores.” Non. p. 524 notices that ‘proxumus’ was used (like our ‘next’） of two objects at a considerable distance, provided there was no other object intervening.
[321] Forb. rightly remarks against Hand. Turs. 4. 502 that ‘post deinde’ is not a pleonastic expression, as in Ter. And. 3. 2. 3 and other places, the construction being “deinde insequitur spatio post eum relicto.”
[323] Sub ipso: ‘sub’ frequently denotes proximity: the peculiarity here is that the proximity is of two persons in motion. ‘Ipso’ makes the proximity closer, as in 3. 5. The acc. is most usual in this sense; and Pal. a m. p. actually has ‘quem.’
[324]
The picture is from Il. 23. 763
foll.:
“αὐτὰρ ὄπισθεν
ἴχνια τύπτε πόδεσσι, πάρος κόνιν ἀμφιχυθῆναι:
κὰδ δ᾽ ἄρα οἱ κεφαλῆς χἔ ἀϋτμένα δῖος
Ὀδυσσεύς,
”
[325] Supersint—transeat, the present subj. used rhetorically for the pluperf., as in 6. 293, 294.
[326] Transeat = “praetereat.” Perhaps we may say Diores in passing his predecessor might have crossed his path so as to place himself actually before him. ‘Elapsus prior:’ comp. v. 151 above. ‘Ambiguumque’ seems to be the reading of every known MS., though the common reading, ‘ambiguumve,’ was said by Heins. to have been found in all his copies. If by ‘ambiguum relinquere’ is meant to leave the contest undecided, which is the general opinion (Heyne, who adopts it, referring ‘ambiguum’ to Helymus as a person), there can be little doubt that ‘ve’ should be read, as it could not be said that in a context like this the two cases could be represented except as alternatives. And this interpretation seems to be exactly confirmed by Il. 23. 382, καί νύ κεν ἢ παρέλασσ᾽, ἢ ἀμφήριστον ἔθηκεν, which Virg. probably had in his mind, as ‘incumbens humero’ seems to be modelled on Hom.'s description in the three lines immediately preceding. But there is another passage which also Virg. had before him, Il. 23. 526, εἰ δέ κ᾽ ἔτι προτέρω γένετο δρόμος ἀμφοτέροισιν, Τῷ κέν μιν παρέλασσ᾽, οὐδ᾽ ἀμφήριστον ἔθηκεν, and this would suggest another interpretation of Virg.'s words, proposed long ago by Turnebus 14. 4, apparently adopted by Cerda, and now revived by Henry, who does not seem aware that he has been anticipated, giving ‘relinquere’ the special sense of leaving behind in a race, like the passive λείπεσθαι (comp. Hor. A. P. 417, “occupet extremum scabies: mihi turpe relinqui est,” and other places), so that the meaning will be ‘would pass him who is now doubtful,’ i. e. would make him doubtful no longer, but clearly defeated. This view I now accept, as satisfactory in itself and recommended by the unanimous concurrence of the MSS. in ‘ambiguumque,’ though, had the preponderance been reversed, I should see no sufficient reason for leaving the ordinary interpretation. Against the new one it may perhaps be urged that it does not bring Virg. into absolute conformity with Hom., who does not mean that Menelaus and Antilochus were ἀμφήριστοι as it was, but that Menelaus in a longer course would not only have become ἀμφήριστος but superior, while Virg. on the other hand, as thus interpreted, represents Helymus as already no more than ‘ambiguus;’ and also that the case of Helymus and Diores is more like that of Eumelus and Diomed, who were nearly even from the first, than that of Menelaus and Antilochus, whose places were reversed during the race by an act of fraud, so that Menelaus, in passing his rival, would only have been asserting the intrinsic superiority which he had all along. But these points, though worth considering, do not seem to me sufficient to overbalance the general probability that this line is meant as a translation of Il. 23. 527, not of ib. 382. I have therefore restored ‘ambiguumque.’
[327] ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ πύματον τέλεον δρόμον Il. 23. 768; ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ τάχ᾽ ἔμελλον ἐπαΐξασθαι ἄεθλον ib. 773. ‘Fessi,’ so that the order was not likely to be altered. Gossrau. ‘Finis’ fem. as in 2. 554., 3. 145. ‘Ipsum’ however is read by five MSS., including Med. a m. sec.
[328] Levis of blood, as of mud G. 4. 45.
[329] Nisus' accident is taken from Ajax's Il. 23. 774 foll. Mr. Gladstone (Homeric Studies, 3, p. 521) blames Virg. for introducing the slaughter of oxen here with the word ‘forte,’ without any such reason as is assigned by Hom.l.c., the sacrifice at the tomb of Patroclus. But without going back to the sacrifice nine days before, v. 97, we may suppose not unreasonably that a sacrifice had been performed to Anchises before the games, though Virg., true to his love of variety, even at the expense of perspicuity, has not chosen directly to inform us of it. We need not settle the topography of the circus; but it cannot have been at any great distance from the tomb. ‘Forte’ expresses, not that the slaughter was an ordinary occurrence, but that part of the course happened to pass over the ground where the slaughter had taken place—a thing which is fairly called accidental, as it cannot have been intended. Serv. says, “Bene rem notam per transitum tetigit: agonalis enim moris fuerat post sacrificia ad certamen venire.”—‘Ut’ may be transferred from time to place, as in Catull. 11. 3, comp. by Wagn. “Sive ad extremos penetrabit Indos, Litus ut longe resonante Eoa Tunditur unda,” Id. 17. 10, comp. by Cerda, “Verum totius ut lacus putidaeque paludis Lividissima maxumeque est profunda vorago.” Virg. however has no other instance of this sense, and ‘ut forte’ might be explained here ‘just as it happened that,’ as ὡς is used sometimes to denote the co-ordination of two things that are really cause and effect.
[330] Super separated from ‘fusus:’ comp. 6. 254.
[332] Titubata as if from a deponent ‘titubor.’ It appears to occur nowhere else, nor does there seem to be any other instance in which Virg. has ventured on a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον of the kind, though he has other participles similarly formed but in more common use, which Gossrau has collected, ‘cretus,’ ‘desuetus,’ ‘placitus,’ ‘praeteritus.’ See Madv. § 110, obs. 3.
[333] With some doubt I follow Ribbeck in changing the period after ‘cruore’ into a comma. He is perhaps too rigorous in proscribing the use of the participle as a finite verb (see on 1. 237), though we have as yet to judge him only by his practice, his theory not having been stated: in the present case, however, the change of punctuation adds elegance to the passage, which is thus assimilated to 1. 3, as at present pointed.
[334] Amorum may = “amati” as in G. 3. 227, or it may be the common use of the plural, as in 4. 28, 292. Some copies have ‘amoris,’ others ‘amorum est.’
[336] Revolutus rather than ‘provolutus,’ not only for the metre's sake, but, as Peerlkamp well remarks, because Salius coming on at full speed would be swung round by the shock. ‘Iacuit’ to express the suddenness of the action. Forb., who well compares 9. 771. ‘Arena’ probably with reference to the circus, as Wagn. suggests: it need not however be a carelessness, but may have been deliberately chosen, as the word is used elsewhere as a poetical synonyme for ‘terra.’ Serv. has a curious note, “‘Spissa:’ tenui: quanto enim quid minutius, tanto est densius,” which has apparently led to the insertion of ‘tenui’ as a correction of ‘spissa’ in one MS., and as a gloss in another.
[337] Munere amici like “vestro munere” G. 1. 7, as we might say, thanks to his friend. Med. a m. pr. has ‘amico,’ which Heins. and Forb. rather approve; but ‘amici’ is more idiomatic.
[338] Prima tenet like “prima peto” above v. 194. ‘Fremitu secundo’ like “clamore secundo” below v. 491.
[339] Tertia palma Diores is a sort of loose apposition, into which those who have occasion to speak of ‘prizes’ in English not uncommonly fall, identifying the prizeman with the prize. No earlier instance of the expression is quoted, but it has been imitated by later writers, such as Silius: see Forcell. The use of ‘palma’ in G. 1. 59 is not quite parallel, as has been there remarked. Here we might have expected the word to be restricted to the victor, see v. 111 above, but it is extended to the three who stand in the relation of victors to the rest, receiving not only presents but prizes. ‘Nunc,’ having been originally fifth.
[340] Salius' complaint is taken partly from Antilochus' against the decision in favour of Eumelus Il. 23. 541 foll., partly from Menelaus' against Antilochus himself ib. 566. “Consessu caveae” 8. 636. Virg. is again using theatric language. The words are from Lucr. 4.78, “consessum caveai.” ‘Ora prima patrum’ is again Roman, an allusion to the “primus subselliorum ordo,” the seats for senators and distinguished persons in the orchestra. ‘Ora’ is used doubtless of the ‘patres’ as spectators, perhaps also as expressers of a favourable or adverse opinion. But its combination with ‘inplet’ is harsh, as the meaning cannot be that they echo Salius' clamours. There is a good parallel to the whole line below, v. 577, “omnem laeti consessum oculosque suorum Lustravere;” but the harshness in “lustravere oculos” is considerably less.
[343] Favor is not quite co-ordinate with ‘lacrimae’ and ‘virtus,’ as the enthusiasm of the spectators was doubtless caused by Euryalus' graceful bearing: but it is possible that previous partiality may be meant. For the special use of ‘favor’ for theatrical enthusiasm see Forc. Euryalus' are tears at the threatened loss of his victory.
[344] Veniens apparently means ‘showing itself,’ “veniens in conspectum.” I find however no exact parallel.
[345] The old pointing connected ‘adiuvat’ with the preceding line; but though supported by Nonius De Numeris et Casibus, it was rightly rejected by Heins. ‘Proclamare’ is used of making a public appeal. “Adsunt, defendunt, proclamant, fidem tuam imporant” Cic. Verr. Act. 2. 5. 42. Hence it is used of a person claiming his liberty by appealing to a judge: see Forc.
[346] Subiit = ‘successit’ as in v. 176 above. It might be paraphrased “subiit loco, cui palma adiuncta est.” ‘Venit ad,’ attained to, perhaps with a further notion of arriving at the goal.
[347] Reddantur Med. a m. p., Rom., ‘redduntur’ Med. a m. s., and two of Ribbeck's cursives, ‘reddentur’ Pal. The subj., as Wagn., who restored it, remarks, expresses Diores' feeling on the matter. Forb. objects that in that case we should have expected ‘subiit’ and ‘venit’ to be in the oratio obliqua also, as equally forming part of Diores' plea. But Diores' plea is not really contained in those words, which are intended to express not the ground which he put forward in his appeal, but the reason why he made an appeal at all. On the other hand the indic., though more regular, would have been comparatively tame. The union of the two forms of expression is grammatically irregular, no doubt: but here as elsewhere the violation of grammar is a gain to rhetorical and poetical effect. We are told that Diores is speaking: we are reminded of what his real grievance is, not in his own words, but in those which would occur to a third person; and then we just catch, as it were, a few of the words which he actually utters. ‘Reddi’ as his due, v. 386 below.
