It would seem from v. 385 that ‘primus’ is meant to be taken more or less strictly, the encounter with Androgeos having been the first of any importance engaged in by Aeneas and his friends. We must suppose then that Aeneas is speaking specifically here, having spoken generally v. 367. A former pointing was ‘Primus se Danaum,’ which is supported by the fact that in other passages of the kind where ‘caterva’ is constructed with a gen., the gen. comes after ‘magna’ (comp. 1. 497., 11. 478): but ‘primus’ with the gen. elsewhere in Virg. appears to mean ‘first in rank.’
 ‘Androgeus’ was restored by Heins. from Med.; Pal., Gud. originally, &c. however give ‘Androgeos,’ which has also the authority of Serv. The difficulty is that the same spelling is not preserved throughout, as almost all the MSS. read ‘Androgei’ v. 392, and Charisius (1. 15, p. 92, Keil) agrees with them, though in 6. 20 he declares that Virg. wrote ‘Androgeo,’ which seems now to be found only in some cursive MSS. In v. 425 the great majority and Charisius have “Penelei,” not “Peneleo.” In 5. 265 Med. has “Demoleus;” Rom. and Pal. “Demoleos,” which is recognized by Quinctilian 8. 4. 24. The MSS. are constantly varying in the spelling of proper names, and it does not seem probable that Virg. would designedly have alternated between two forms of the same word within a few lines of each other, nor yet that a bonâ fide tradition of his variety of practice in this respect can have come down to the grammarians. Reason would seem in favour of ‘Androgeos,’ ‘Androgeo,’ as the Greek form would be Ἀνδρογέως or Ἀνδρόγαιος, like Μενελέως or Μενέλαος, and the Romans do not turn ω into ‘u,’ while if they had preferred the latter form they would have had to lengthen the penultimate by adopting the diphthong. If ‘Androgeus’ is to be defended, we must suppose that Virg., wishing to avoid the Greek form, especially in an oblique case, chose to Latinize an imaginary third form, Ἀνδρόγεος. Meanwhile it seems safest to decide for ‘Androgeos’ here on the analogy of ‘Demoleos,’ which will also avoid the necessity of supposing a caesura, and in vv. 392, 425 to follow the great multitude of MSS. “Socium agmen” v. 613 below.
 It seems better to read this line without the interrogation, added by Heyne and late editors. ‘Others are plundering Troy, which is on fire every where; and here are you, only just now on your way from the ships.’
 The words apparently mean the answer returned was not such as to assure him. Serv. may be right in referring it to the watchword, or again we might suppose from v. 423 that there was a difference in dialect. In any case the tense of ‘dabantur’ is to be observed; no satisfactory answer was being given, such as Androgeos expected to receive at once.
 Sensit delapsus is a familiar Grecism, probably to be explained not by attraction, but by the help of the fuller expression, “delapsus sensit se delapsum esse,” though in sense of course the participle stands instead of the object of the verb. The principle is the same as that of prolepsis, and is exemplified also in such expressions as “ostendit se dextra,” v. 388. Or we may say that the participle qualifies the verb, “he perceived as a man perceives who has fallen” &c. In some cases the difference between the nom. and the acc. with ‘esse’ scarcely affects the sense at all, e. g. “gaudent perfusi sanguine fratrum,” G. 2. 510, where the use of the nom. appears quite natural, and the object of the verb is supplied without any difficulty. The use of the nom. with “esse,” as in Hor. 3 Od. 27. 73, “Uxor invicti Iovis esse nescis,” is not to be confounded with it, as there an attraction does take place, or rather perhaps a confusion between the two modes of expression. It is right also to remember that “sentio” is sometimes used absolutely (see on 7. 434), which may have been an additional reason for Virg. to employ the expression here.
 Pedem cum voce repressit, like “palmas cum voce tetendit,” v. 688, &c., is a piece of rather artificial quaintness, resembling Horace's “finis chartaeque viaeque,” 1 S. 5. 104. ‘Retro repressit,’ as in G. 1. 200, “retro referri.”
 Imitated from Il. 3. 33. ‘Aspris:’ the syncopated form has been supposed to exist in Ennius, Hedyphagetica 2, “Mures sunt Acni, aspra ostrea plurima Abydi;” but the MSS. of Appuleius, who preserves the fragment, have “aspera,” and the metre makes the change very uncertain. Vahlen corrects “spissa.”
 G. 3. 421.
 Successu exsultans was restored by Heins., apparently from all the best MSS., for ‘exsultans successu.’ Wund. referred ‘exsultans animis’ to Coroebus' joy in the prowess of his companions; but Wagn. rightly questions the Latinity of this.
 Comp. 1. 314., 12. 625.
 Insignia is a common word for the conspicuous accoutrements of a soldier, such as shields and helmets. Comp. Tac. H. 1. 38, “rapta statim arma, sine more et ordine militiae, ut praetorianus aut legionarius insignibus suis distingueretur: miscentur auxiliaribus galeis scutisque.”
 ‘Who, having to deal with an enemy, would draw distinctions between stratagem and hard fighting?’ ‘In hoste,’ v. 541. ‘Requirit,’ i. q. “rogat,” as in v. 506 below. The sentiment may be taken, as Cerda thinks, from Pind. Isthm. 4, χρὴ δὲ πᾶν ἔρδοντ᾽ ἀμα:υρῶσαι τὸν ἐχθρόν.
 ‘They shall themselves supply us with the arms we are to use against them,’ ‘ipsi’ referring to the enemy generally, as Henry takes it. Serv. wishes to put a question after ‘arma,’ a very unseasonable attempt at rhetorical interrogation. ‘Deinde’ after a participle, like “tum,” 5. 382. Comp. 5. 14, note.
 See above on v. 371. The ‘insigne’ is the shield itself, as in v. 389.
 No reason can be assigned for distinguishing Dymas from the rest; so that ‘ipse’ must be understood as equivalent to ‘etiam,’ with which it is not unfrequently joined. In this sense it would naturally be used with the last-mentioned person, the distinction being simply that he has not been named before, ‘Dymas as well as others.’ Serv. says many punctuated after ‘ipse,’ referring it to Aeneas himself.
 Med. has ‘immixtis.’ ‘Haud numine nostro’ is commonly explained, ‘with no god to aid us,’ or ‘with the gods against us.’ The context however seems decidedly to recommend a different sense, as the narrative down to v. 401 is evidently meant to describe the apparent success of the stratagem, and any words suggesting the real truth would not only interfere with the feeling of triumph, but spoil the effect of the next paragraph, which is ushered in by a sudden change of tone, “Heu, nihil invitis fas quemquam fidere divis!” The words must then refer to the Trojans as marching under a protection not their own, whether we suppose with Serv. that the Grecian arms actually carried with them the favour of the Grecian deities, or understand Virg. simply to express in theological language the advantage derived from the disguise as Aeneas in v. 735 ascribes to some deity the confusion of mind which led him to lose Creusa. In prose we might have had “favente Fortuna haud nostra.” Comp. v. 387, where Coroebus suggests that they should treat the opportunity as an interposition of fortune in their favour.
 Fida, because their fleet was there.
 “Nec equi caeca condemur in alvo,” 9. 152. See on vv. 19, 20. The argument there drawn from this place rests on the assumption that the cowardice described here is not likely to have been shown by any of the leaders of the Greeks: Virg. however may have chosen to disparage them here as he has done 6. 489 foll.
[402-437] ‘Fortune turns against us. We are mistaken by the Trojans, discovered by the Greeks, and slaughtered by both. I make for the palace.’