[838] This second ‘ille’ has been variously identified. Hyginus, quoted by Gell. 10. 16, assumed that Mummius was still intended, and accused Virg. of confounding two distinct events, Mummius' campaign and the war with Pyrrhus, whom he supposes to be intended by ‘Aeaciden,’ his conclusion being that Virg. would doubtless have altered the passage had he lived, and that if v. 839 were excluded, all would be right. Gossrau still pleads for Mummius, contending with considerable ingenuity that Anchises in the preceding couplet has expressed himself in Roman imagery, and now repeats his meaning in words more intelligible to Aeneas, who knew nothing of Corinth or the Capitol, and would only conceive of the conquest of Greece as a victory over the descendants of Achilles or the destruction of the empire of Agamemnon. But Anchises is not elsewhere so considerate to his son's ignorance, referring as he does throughout to Roman exploits in Roman language: nor is it credible that ‘ipsum Aeaciden’ should have been used not for an individual but for the descendants of Achilles generally. The argument that if ‘ultus’ &c. v. 840 be referred to any one but Mummius, Virg. virtually denies that Mummius did execute this revenge, needs no refutation. So far as the language is concerned, it would certainly seem that the second ‘ille’ denotes a different person from the first. The most probable candidate for this honour appears to be L. Aemilius Paullus, the conqueror of Macedon, v. 839 being understood of his victory over Perseus, who is said by Prop. 5. 11. 39, Sil. 15. 291 (speaking of his father Philip) to have been a descendant of Achilles; though there still remains a difficulty, as Paullus was not the destroyer of Argos and Mycenae. We must suppose then that Virg. has written loosely, perhaps conceiving that the indefinite ‘ille—ille’ exempted him from the need of strict accuracy. Heyne suggests that ‘ipsum Aeaciden’ may refer to Paullus' cruel destruction of the Epirots, supposed to be represented by their ancestor Pyrrhus (agreeably to the well-known line of Ennius, “Aio te, Aeacida, Romanos vincere posse,” Ann. 6. fr. 7): but this is far less likely. Others have suggested that the person meant by ‘ille’ may be Q. Caecilius Metellus, surnamed Macedonicus, who conquered the pseudo-Philip, and began the war with the Achaeans which Mummius finished.
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.