[452] With Ribbeck I have recalled ‘umbras,’ the reading of Heyne, supported by Rom., Pal., &c., for ‘umbram’ (Med. &c.), so as to show clearly that ‘obscuram’ belongs to Dido. Henry rightly contends against referring it to ‘umbram,’ remarking that Virg. does not place the subst. at the end of one line and the epithet at the beginning of another, unless where the epithet is intended to be forcible, as in vv. 492, 493 below, and that to imagine any particular force in ‘obscuram’ as an epithet of ‘umbram’ would spoil the sense, leading us to suppose the darkness to be greater than it was really intended to be. Comp. v. 268, “Ibant obscuri sola sub nocte per umbram,” and also v. 340, where “multa umbra” does not really support ‘umbram obscuram’ here.
This text is part of:
John Conington. P. Vergili Maronis opera. P. Vergili Maronis Opera. The works of Virgil, with a Commentary by John Conington, M.A. Late Corpus Professor of Latin in the University of Oxford. London. Whittaker and Co., Ave Maria Lane. 1876.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.