[664] Hoc erat &c. ‘was this thy deliverance of me, that I might see’ &c. ‘Quod eripis’ is the subject, ‘hoc’ the predicate, and ‘ut cernam’ depends on ‘hoc.’ Taubmann comp. Prop. 3. 18. 1, “Hoc erat in primis quod me gaudere iubebas?” ‘Quod’ is an adverbial or cognate accusative: see on v. 141. The tenses are confused, ‘ut cernam’ depending on ‘hoc erat,’ a change doubtless favoured by the use of ‘eripis’ immediately preceding the dependent clause: or we may say with Jahn that there is a mixture of constructions, “hoc erat quod me eripuisti ut cernerem” and “hoc igitur consilio me eripis ut cernam.” ‘Hoc erat’ may throw some light on such expressions as “tempus erat” Hor. 1 Od. 37. 4, “nunc non erat his locus” Id. A. P. 19. Priscian pp. 948, 958 says that the oldest copies of Virg. in his time had ‘hocc erat,’ which is his way of accounting for the lengthening of ‘hoc’ before a vowel.
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.