[376] “Talibus Allecto dictis exarsit in iras” 7. 445. “Violentia Turni” 12. 45: see Introduction to this book. Here perhaps it may be a Grecism, like βίη Ἡρακλείη, but it is not necessarily one.
[377] Gemitum, he groans for rage. “Rumpitque hanc pectore vocem” 3. 246.
[378] The commentators comp. Il. 2. 796 (Iris to Priam), ὦ γέρον, αἰεί τοι μῦθοι φίλοι ἄκριτοί εἰσιν, Ὥς ποτ᾽ ἐπ᾽ εἰρήνης: πόλεμος δ᾽ ἀλίαστος ὄρωρεν. The old order before Pier. and Heins., ‘semper, Drance,’ is found in Pal., Rom., Gud., and two other of Ribbeck's cursives.
[379] Tunc, the reading before Heins., occurs in none of Ribbeck's MSS. “Patribus vocatis” 5. 758.
[380] Virg. may conceivably have thought of Il. 4. 343, πρώτω γὰρ καὶ δαιτὸς ἀκουάζεσθον ἐμεῖο. There seems no emphasis on ‘curia,’ the words merely meaning ‘we do not want words that fill the senate-house.’
[381] “‘Tuto’ dativus an adverbium?” Serv. Surely the former: comp. “vesano talia late Dicta volant Ligeri” 10. 583. ‘Quae tuto tibi volant’ i. q. “quae tutus iacis.” ‘Magna’ is transferred from the antecedent to the relative, as it suits better the action indicated by ‘volant’ than that denoted by ‘replenda.’ For ‘distinet’ Med. and some others have ‘detinet,’ which would not be so good.
[382] Nearly from 10. 24. Here Ribbeck's MSS., except Gud. corrected and another cursive, have ‘aggere,’ a repetition from 10. 144, which would make no sense here. Rom., Gud., Pal. corrected, &c. give ‘murorum.’ Pal. and originally Gud. have ‘et’ for ‘nec,’ from 10. 24; and so Canter conj. and Cerda read, apparently supposing the meaning of the whole sentence to be ‘while the enemy is at the gates,’ whereas it really means ‘while the enemy are still on the outer side of the wall, and there is no immediate call for action.’ Lastly, Priscian p. 798 talks of a reading ‘fossas,’ probably from a confusion with 10. l. c., as the word appears to be found in no MS. here. There is a slight verbal inconsistency in Turnus' reproaches (comp. ‘Proinde tona eloquio’ with ‘non replenda est curia verbis’), but the general sense is clear.
[383] Proinde with an imperative is rather common: comp. 4. 400, Lucr. 5. 1129 (1131), and see other instances in Forc. Serv. well comments on ‘tona eloquio,’ “non strepitu armorum.” Germ. comp. Aristoph.'s language about Pericles. Canon. corrected and some other copies (none of Ribbeck's) have ‘solito:’ but ‘solitum’ is more idiomatic, though it is not easy to say whether Virg. intended it as cogn. acc. or as nom. See on 6. 223 &c. Tac. H. 4. 23 has “machinas etiam, insolitum sibi, ausi,” where it seems an ordinary acc. Heyne says εἰωθός is similarly used, but gives no instance. ‘Me’ is emphatic, as ‘tu’ shows.
[384] Quando = “quandoquidem.” ‘Stragis acervos’ 6. 504, here constructed as one notion with ‘Teucrorum.’
[385] “Stragem dedere” G. 3. 247.
[386] “‘Insignis,’ nobilitas, clarificas, nam verbum est ‘insignio,’” Serv. The compiler of the Delphin Index took it for an adj., and some MSS. write ‘insignes.’ Virg. uses the verb again 7. 790. The present may either express the habit, or the continuing effect of the past action. One MS. reads ‘tot agros,’ two others ‘campos:’ “ita fuere de syllaba ‘is’ male solliciti,” as Heyne remarks. “Vivida virtus” 5. 754.
[389] Imus can hardly be taken except as an ironical interrogation, ‘Well, are we going?’ Heyne's suggestion that it may be indic. for imper., like the Homeric ἴομεν, is not very fortunate.
[390] In the tongue and the feet, not in the hand and the breast, his proper regions. See on 10. 280.
[391] Med. originally filled up the line with ‘nequiquam armis terrebimus hostem?’ the Leyden MS., somewhat better, with ‘numquamne sines fallacia verba?’
[392] Pulsus repeated from v. 366 above. ‘Aut’ may seem to do little more than introduce the question, as there is no real distinction between the two cases put, his being vanquished and his being called so deservedly. But we may account for its use here by saying that though there is no distinction between the two thoughts, there is a distinction between the two ways of expressing the same thought, and that there is a rhetorical propriety in making Turnus, after adopting the one, discard it impatiently for the other. As might be expected, Gud. corrected and another of Ribbeck's cursives have ‘haud.’ ‘Merito’ with ‘arguet.’
[393] “Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno” 6. 87.
[394] Turnus exaggerates, the fall of Evander's house consisting of course merely in the death of Pallas without issue. With ‘cum stirpe’ comp. G. 3. 473, “Spemque gregemque simul totamque ab origine gentem.” ‘Videbit:’ we should have expected the past rather than the future; but Virg. apparently expresses himself as if the bodies were yet unburied and might be seen by any one.
[395] ‘Exutos Arcadas armis’ cannot well refer, as Heyne thinks, to the single Pallas. The only slaughter among the Arcadians we hear of is by Lausus, 10. 429: but we may readily suppose that Turnus slew many in the interval between his killing Pallas and being carried off to Ardea. “Exuere armis” is a military phrase: Caesar, B. G. 3. 6., 5. 51.
[396] The commentators comp. Il. 8. 153 foll. ‘Ita,’ “tanquam victum,” Forb. For Bitias and Pandarus see 9. 672 foll. For ‘ingens’ Med. originally had ‘urguens.’ Gud. indicates a variant, but the word is erased.
