‘His lacrimis:’ to this tearful appeal. So “quo gemitu” of Sinon's speech, v. 73. ‘Ultro’ seems to express, we not only grant his life to his tears, but compassionate him, as ‘petere ultro’ is said of a man who not only maintains his rights, but acts on the offensive. Thus it may often be rendered ‘gratuitously.’ So “compellare ultro,” to speak without having been first addressed. So Serv., “Non est sponte, nam rogaverat Sinon, sed insuper. Et venit ab eo quod est ultra: quia plus quam rogaverat praestiterunt.”
 The common construction in Virg. is “levare aliquem aliqua re,” as E. 9. 65, “ego hoc te fasce levabo.” It may be doubted whether we have here that construction reversed, the fetters being said to be relieved of the man, ‘viro’ abl., or whether ‘viro’ is dat., and ‘levari’ has the force of being lightened or removed.
 Amissos obliviscere for “amitte atque obliviscere,” like “submersasque obrue puppis,” 1. 69, “amittere” being used in its primary and earlier sense of “dimittere” (“quod nos dicimus dimittere antiqui etiam dicunt amittere,” Donat. on Ter. Heaut. 3. 1. 71), which, though mostly ante-classical, is found in Cic. (see Forc.). Sinon responds to the appeal v. 157 foll. by formally disconnecting himself from all previous ties.
 Serv. says that Livy gives “quisquis es, noster eris,” as the formula actually used by a general in receiving a deserter from the enemy. ‘Noster’ is opposed to “alienus” more than once in Plautus (Mil. 2. 5. 21, Amph. 1. 1. 243), so that when Cicero (Q. Fr. 1. 1. 3) says “Halienus noster est cum animo et benivolentia, tum vero etiam imitatione vivendi,” he doubtless intends a pun. Other instances quoted by Forc., where ‘noster’ clearly bears a similar sense, are Ter. Adelph. 5. 8. 28, Val. Fl. 2. 561. ‘Eris’ is probably Virg.'s own variation for “esto:” at any rate the future is used in an imperative sense (Madv. § 384, obs.), so that there is no difficulty about the coupling of ‘eris’ and ‘edissere.’ ‘Mihique haec’ &c.: Il. 10. 284, ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε μοι τόδε εἰπὲ καὶ ἀτρεκέως κατάλεξον, addressed to Dolon.
 Quae religio aut quae machina belli. ‘Aut’ is strictly disjunctive, as the two questions involve incompatible suppositions,—the one referring to the story spread by the Greeks themselves, the other to the suspicions of Laocoon and others. It would be forcing ‘religio’ too much to interpret it ‘a religious offering;’ but it may nevertheless be coupled with ‘machina,’ both being regarded as objects which the Greeks might desire. In prose “religionisne observandae, an machinae fabricandae caussa?” ‘Quae’ is to be taken strictly, ‘What was the religious object (if religious object there were)?’
 Aeterni ignes of all the heavenly bodies, as ‘ad sidera’ merely means ‘to heaven.’ ‘Vos et vestrum numen:’ pleonastic, like Lucr. 1.6, “fugiunt . . te nubila caeli, Adventumque tuum.” Comp. also 4. 27, “quam te violo aut tua iura resolvo.” Markland ingeniously but needlessly conjectured ‘Vestae’ for ‘vestrum.’
 See note on v. 134.
 Fas est, not “sit,” as ‘teneor’ shows. ‘I am free to break my oath of fealty to the Greeks.’ The literal meaning appears to be, ‘the rights of the Greeks sanctioned (by oath),’ “sacratum ius” being equivalent, according to Serv., to “sacramentum” or “iusiurandum,” the military oath. Thus Sinon successively disclaims all former obligations as a soldier, as a friend, as a colleague and confidant, and as a citizen. ‘Resolvere iura’ 4. 27.
 Teneri legibus is a phrase. Cic. Phil. 11. 5 opposes it to “solvi:” “Vopiscus . . . . solvatur legibus, quanquam leges eum non tenent.” Generally it seems equivalent to “legibus obnoxius esse,” “poena teneri” being also used. On the other hand in 12. 819, “nulla fati quod lege tenetur,” and Ov. M. 10. 203, “quoniam fatali lege tenemur,” it appears to have the sense of “contineri,” to be restrained. This might possibly be its force here, so as to restrict the reference of the words to the clause immediately preceding, ‘I am free to reveal all secrets, nor does any law restrain me;’ but the other view seems more consistent with the scope of the passage as explained on v. 157, as well as with general usage.
 Promissis maneas, 8. 643, more commonly “stare promissis.” ‘In’ is generally added (see Forc. ‘maneo’), from which it appears that the case is local: and so the Greek ἐμμένειν. ‘Servata serves fidem,’ ‘preserve faith with thy preserver.’
 ‘If I shall make a large return (for life granted and protection assured).’ Forb. and others call attention to the art with which Sinon's invocation and appeal are constructed, as if every part of them were capable of double sense. But though his appeal to the sacrifice which he had escaped was a sham oath, the same cannot be said of the address to heaven; and so we need not fancy that anything is intended here by the use of ‘si,’ ‘feram’ and ‘rependam’ being plainly futures. The irony is merely that of general hypocrisy.
 The construction is not ‘stetit auxiliis’ for “stetit in auxiliis” (comp. 1. 646), which is Heyne's view, but ‘stetit auxiliis,’ ‘stood by the aid,’ ‘was kept up by the aid.’ Livy 8. 7, “disciplinam militarem, qua stetit ad hanc diem Romana res.” Id. 45. 19, “regnum . . . . fraterna stare concordia.” So “Di quibus inperium hoc steterat,” v. 352. See also note on v. 169. ‘Impius,’ already impious, as having wounded Venus and Mars (Forb.), —an interpretation required by ‘scelerum inventor.’
 Adgressi avellere, 6. 583. The story of the Palladium was variously told; the main points however seem to be that its importance as one of the charms which rendered Troy impregnable became known to the Greeks through Helenus, and that Diomede and Ulysses made their way to the citadel by a secret passage and took the image, quarrelling about it on their road home. Its supposed possession by the Romans was accounted for in different ways, some saying that Diomede restored it to Aeneas in Italy (see on 3. 407), others that it was never taken by the Greeks, but hidden by the Trojans, and discovered by the Romans during the Mithridatic war. But it forms no part of Virg.'s story, being merely alluded to again 9. 151. See Serv.'s note on the present passage, and Heyne's Excursus, which treats chiefly of the capture of the Palladium as represented on gems.
 Virgineas vittas seems to show, as Heyne remarks, that the figure was one of “Pallas vittata,” not of Pallas with her helmet on. So the Vesta which Hector carries out v. 296 is “Vesta vittata.” But it is strange that, having shield and spear, she should not also have worn her helmet. For a somewhat similar difficulty, see on 5. 556. ‘Virgineas:’ the fillets of virgins were different from those of matrons. Dict. A. ‘vitta.’ Prop. 5. 11. 34, “Vinxit et acceptas altera vitta comas,” of marriage.
 See G. 1. 200, from which part of this line is repeated. The general notion is that of flowing away, as opposed to permanence, “stetit” v. 163 (and so Donatus). So Cic. Orator 3, “cetera nasci, occidere, fluere, labi, nec diutius esse uno et eodem statu.” So too the philosophical use of ‘fluere’ in Lucr. e. g. 5. 280. The particular image it is difficult to fix, if indeed any definite image was present to the poet's mind. Perhaps that of a man carried off from his standing-ground “in solido” (11. 427) by the reflux of a wave (“retrahitque pedes simul unda relabens,” 10. 307), and so borne back to sea, would come nearest to it: but as the same words in the passage from the Georgics introduce a different image, though one excluded here by the context, it is safer not to speak confidently.
 “Ea signa dedit: eius rei signa dedit, id significavit.” Forb. Wagn. refers to 4. 237 “hic nuntius,” 7. 595 “has poenas,” 12. 468 “hoc metu.” The principle is the same as has been illustrated in the case of “qui” (E. 1. 53, &c.), and “ullus” (E. 10. 12). ‘Nor were the portents dubious by which she gave signs of her anger.’
 Arrectis, raised in fury, just as 1. 482 the goddess keeps her eyes on the ground in sullen displeasure: “arrigere lumina,” like “comas,” “auris,” &c., being seemingly expressive of quicker motion than “erigere.” ‘Salsus sudor,’ probably from some old poet, like “salsae lacrimae” Att. Med. fr. 15. Phin. fr. 7, Lucr. 1.125, and “salsus sanguis,” Enn. Cresph. fr. 8, Att. Epin. fr. 12. Inc. fr. 39. For the quality of saltness Forb. refers to Aristot. Prob. 2. 3. The force of the epithet here is to show the reality of the portent, as a proof of indignation. For the portent itself see G. 1. 480.
 Ipsa, of herself; not the whole goddess, distinguished from the parts just enumerated, as Forb. thinks.
 The clashing of the arms is probably intended as well as their motion, as Cerda remarks, comparing a passage of Philostratus De Heroicis, where the spirit of Ajax is said δουπῆσαι τοῖς ὅπλοις οἷον ἐν ταῖς μάχαις εἰώθει. Comp. G. 1. 474, A. 8. 526 foll.
 Canit here of prophetic injunctions, as elsewhere of prophecies. ‘Extemplo’ probably with ‘canit.’ ‘Temptanda fuga aequora’ seems to answer to “temptare Thetin ratibus” E. 4. 32. The dangers of the voyage have been already referred to v. 110.
 Omina repetant, referring to the Roman custom of returning from the camp to the city for fresh auspices in case of any thing unlucky. Serv. “Repetere auspicia” was the common phrase: see Drakenborch on Livy 8. 30, § 2. ‘Numen reducant’ is explained by “deos parant comites,” v. 181, to refer to the same thing, the bringing back of fresh auspices from Greece, not to the bringing back of the Palladium, which it is evident from the context they had not carried to Greece. The gods are put for the auspices, as probably in 12. 286, “Pulsatos referens infecto foedere divos.” If the army had actually had the gods with them, as Aeneas the Penates, it is difficult to see why they should have gone back to Greece. ‘Numen’ of an indication of the divine will vv. 123 above, 336 below, 3. 363., 7. 119 (where it might be exchanged for “omen”), 9. 661., 11. 232.
 Pelago et carinis, over the sea and in ships, the copula being introduced to connect two different but equally admissible constructions, “pelago vehere” and “carinis vehere.” So probably Aesch. Cho. 557, δόλῳ τε καὶ ληφθῶσιν ἐν ταὐτῷ βρόχῳ. ‘Avexere,’ from Greece to Troy, at the beginning of the expedition. The mood would more regularly have been the subj., but Virg. has returned to the oratio recta. Some inferior MSS. have ‘advexere,’ which was the reading before Heins.; two give ‘adduxere.’
 v. 25 above. ‘Quod petiere’ is explained by Munro on Lucr. 4.885 as a peculiar use of ‘quod,’ denoting the effect rather than the cause, ‘the reason why they have sailed &c. is,’ a use found also in Lucr. 1. c., Ov. 3 Amor. 5. 39 foll. This is doubtless the case; but he seems to go too far when he says that the instances given by Madv. § 398 b, obs. 2, e.g. “quod scribis te . . ad me venturum, ego vero te istic esse volo” Cic. Fam. 14. 3, are of a different kind. Madv.'s explanation, ‘as to the fact that,’ will apply to all the passages equally, as it will to Lucr. 2. 532., 6. 740, which Prof. Munro considers parallel. Comp. also Prop. 5. 6. 49, “Quodque vehunt prorae Centaurica saxa minantes, Tigna cava et pictos experiere metus.” In each case the speaker is adverting to some fact which he feels himself called upon to meet.
 Note on v. 178. ‘They are furnishing themselves with fresh forces and fresh auspices:’ they are either in Greece doing so at this moment, or on a voyage of which that is the object.
 Inprovisi aderunt: Serv. says well “Verum metum falso metu abigit, ut dum reversuros timent non timeant ne non abierint.” ‘Digerit omina,’ arranges the omens, perhaps with reference to the ‘sortes;’ hence expounds the omens in order (ἐξηγεῖσθαι), explains the routine which must be followed to propitiate the gods and ensure success. The word is used 3. 446 of the Sibyl. For ‘omina’ here and in v. 178 some inferior MSS. have ‘omnia,’ which in this passage at least was for some time the common reading, and is supported by Canon. Canter appears to have restored ‘omina’ here on conjecture, and Stephens in the former passage, before Heins. introduced it from the MSS.
 Caelo educere 6. 178. Comp. G. 2. 188, “editus austro” and note, though “austro” = “ad austrum” bears rather a different sense from ‘caelo’ = “ad caelum.” For ‘roboribus textis’ see on v. 112 above.
 Aut connects ‘duci’ with ‘recipi,’ as expressing mere varieties of detail, while both are coupled with ‘tueri’ by ‘neu,’ to express two different points of view. ‘Posset’ Pal., Gud., ‘possit’ fragm. Vat., Med., Priscian p. 1028. Ribbeck seems right in restoring the imperf. as the more regular. The words are constantly confounded (see on 6. 754), and here, as Wagn. remarks, ‘iussit’ at the end of the preceding line may have caught the transcriber's eye.
 Omen, augury. The denunciation of ruin however would itself be a bad omen; so Sinon even in repeating it thinks it necessary to pray that it may recoil on its author. ‘Prius,’ ere it reaches you.
 ‘Ascendisset’ may refer both to surmounting the walls, v. 237, and to entering the city and being lodged in the “arx.”
 Ultro, note v. 145; not merely repel the invaders, but retaliate. Wagn. (formerly) and Forb. wrongly take it in a local sense, “from a distance.” Comp. 11. 286, “ultro Inachias venisset ad urbes Dardanus, et versis lugeret Graecia fatis,” where the language is exactly parallel. ‘Asiam magno bello:’ the terms are chosen so as to convey the meaning that the new war against Greece will be as great as the old against Troy. Not unlike is Hor. 1 Ep. 2. 7, “Graecia Barbariae lento collisa duello.”
 Comp. 3. 505, “maneat nostros ea cura nepotes.” The sense here is that Troy was to invade Greece in the next generation, as the Epigoni invaded Thebes where their fathers had fallen. ‘Ea fata,’ “magnum exitium” v. 190.