The island is said to be a ‘sinus,’ a bay, forming a doubtful roadstead, being all for which it was then remarkable. ‘Male fida,’ opposed to “statio tutissima,” G. 4. 421. Forb. rightly distinguishes ‘statio’ from “portus,” and Henry appositely refers to Vell. Pat. 2. 72, “Exitialemque tempestatem fugientibus statio pro portu foret.”
 Huc may be taken with ‘condunt,’ as Forb. (G. 1. 442, “conditus in nubem”), but it had perhaps better go with ‘provecti,’ as otherwise we should have expected ‘in litus.’ ‘Deserto in litore’ shows that the change in the fortunes of Tenedos had already begun.
 Wagn. is hardly right in explaining ‘vento petere’ here and v. 180 to mean no more than “navibus petere.” In 1. 307., 4. 46, 381, where similar expressions are used, the meaning evidently is that the person is supposed to be driven by the winds: here the notion seems to be that of dependence on the winds, though we are meant to infer that the winds are favourable. Thus Heyne's interpretation “vento secundo” is virtually true. In 3. 563 the addition of ‘remis’ makes the case somewhat different.
 Nearly repeated 5. 612.
 This and the next verse express in an objective form what is said or thought by the parties of Trojans. Comp. 7. 150 foll., where however the discoveries of the reconnoitrers are put in oratio obliqua. ‘Dolopum:’ note on v. 7. ‘Tendebat,’ pitched his tent, 8. 605, a military word, whence “tentorium.” For the implied anachronism see on 1. 469.
 Classibus hic locus. The ships, as Henry remarks, were drawn up on the shore, and the tents pitched among them. The opposition is between ‘classibus’ and ‘acie.’ ‘Here they pitched; here they fought with us.’ ‘Acie’ was restored by Heins. from Med., Rom., and other MSS. ‘Acies’ is however supported by Gud. corrected, Canon., and others, and given as an alternative by Serv.
 Donum Minervae, “non quod ipsa dedit, sed quod ei oblatum est.” Serv., rightly, as is shown by the parallel v. 189, and by the passage from Attius quoted on v. 17, from which Virg. doubtless took the words. The epithet ‘innuptae,’ which is rather in the Homeric style than appropriate to anything in the context, makes it likely that he was referring also to Eur. Tro. 536, χάριν ἄζυγος ἀβροτοπώλου, which according to the ordinary interpretation is understood in precisely the same way, though Hermann questions the applicability of ἀβροτοπώλου to the goddess, and supposes ἄζυξ ἀβροτόπωλος to be the horse. The offering was made to Minerva as one of the tutelary deities of Troy, whom the Greeks had outraged, and as such it was virtually an offering to Troy and the Trojans—a consideration which reconciles the present passage with those where it is spoken of as a gift to the Trojans (vv. 36, 44, 49), and accounts for the epithet ‘exitiale.’ That some such object was pretended before Sinon came forward to develope the story we have seen in v. 17. ‘Minervae’ seems still to be the gen., as in Cic. Verr. 2. 3. 80, “civium Romanorum dona,” presents made to Roman citizens (referred to by Gossrau).
 In Hom. (Od. 8. 504) the Trojans first drag the horse to the citadel (which in Virg. does not happen till v. 245), and then deliberate as here what to do with it, the party of Thymoetes being represented by the words ἢ ἐάᾳν μέγ᾽ ἄγαλμα θεῶν θελκτήριον εἶναι.
 Dolo: because, according to the legend mentioned by Serv., and a scholiast on Lycophron, Thymoetes had a grudge against Priam, who in consequence of an oracle that a child born on a certain day would be the ruin of Troy, put to death an illegitimate son of his own by Cilla, wife of Thymoetes, not Paris, who had the same birthday. ‘Iam,’ ‘now at last,’ as Henry takes it. ‘Sic ferebant’ seems to mean ‘were setting that way:’ see on 11. 345. So apparently Cic. Pis. 2. 5, “quod ita existimabam tempora reip. ferre.” Virg. may have thought of Il. 2. 834, κῆρες γὰρ ἄγον μέλανος θανάτοιο. τὸ φέρον is the Greek synonyme for Fate.
 Insidias for the horse itself, like “doli” v. 264. Od. 8. 494, ὅν ποτ᾽ ἐς ἀκρόπολιν δόλον ἤγαγε δῖος Ὀδυσσεύς, unless δόλον be an adverbial or cognate acc. So Eur. Tro. 530, δόλιον ἄταν, also of the horse. ‘Dona:’ see on v. 31.
 It may be doubted from the word ‘praecipitare’ whether Virg. meant to translate Od. 8. 508, ἢ κατὰ πετράων βαλέειν ἐρύσαντας ἐπ᾽ ἄκρης. ‘Subiectisque’ is the reading of the MSS. Heyne introduced ‘subiectisve,’ on a warrant from Servius. Wagn. (Q. V. 34. 1) adduces other instances where ‘que’ couples notions which though not strictly compatible with each other have some point in common,—as here burning and sinking are two modes of destroying the horse, and so are distinguished from any plan of examining it.
 Od. 8. 507, where the three propositions debated are breaking open the horse (διατμῆξαι, stronger than ‘terebrare’), casting it from a precipice, and accepting it as a peace-offering to the gods. ‘Temptare’ here is simply to search, with no notion of danger, as Forb. thinks, whatever it may have clsewhere. ‘Cavas latebras,’ a translation of κοῖλον λόχον, Od. 4. 277., 8. 515.
 Scinditur in studia contraria implies that they take opposite sides, apparently those of Thymoetes and Capys, with warmth, ‘studia’ being almost an anticipation of Tacitus' use of the word in the sense of factions, “Ultio senatum in studia diduxerat,” Hist. 4. 6. The line is doubtless meant, as it is generally quoted, to characterize a mob contemptuously; but it points as much to party spirit as to giddiness.
[40-56] ‘Laocoon warmly denounces the horse as a Greek stratagem, and hurls his spear at it.’