Iarbas seems to have been connected with Dido in the original legend, as he appears in Justin 18. 6 as a king of the Maxitanians or Mazyes, who offers Dido marriage, threatening war in case of her refusal, whereupon she kills herself. He is here made a son of Ammon, the Libyan god whom the Greeks identified with Zeus and the Romans with Jupiter: and Virg. chooses to represent him as having introduced the worship of his parent-god among his countrymen. The spelling ‘Hammone’ is supported by Med. and Rom. ‘Garamantis’ apparently means Libyan generally. ‘Rapta’ as in 1. 28.
 Wund. seems right in saying that ‘posuit’ and ‘sacraverat’ really refer to the same time, which is regarded from two different points of view. The everburning light was kept up at the great oracle of Jupiter Ammon, as appears from Plutarch De Oraculorum Defectu, p. 410 B, referred to by Taubm. ‘Sacraverat ignem’ 2. 502.
 Excubias aeternas stands in a loose apposition to ‘vigilem ignem,’ the fire being kept up by attendants of the god, who are thus said to be his watchers. ‘Solum’ and ‘limina’ are considered by Wag. to be independent nominatives: but it seems better to make them accusatives, somewhat loosely connected with ‘sacraverat.’
 It is difficult to see why Virg. should have weakened his narrative by introducing ‘dicitur:’ but the love of variety was probably what tempted him. For ‘numina’ Serv. mentions another reading ‘munera,’ which is very plausible, as ‘media inter munera divom’ would answer exactly to “in honore deum medio” G. 3. 486. ‘Numina’ however gives an excellent sense: ‘with the gods (i. e. their statues) all about him.’ Comp. 1. 447.
 Henry with the later commentators calls attention to ‘nunc,’ “now and never before, thy worship having been, until introduced to me, unknown to the Maurusian nation.” ‘Pictis toris’ points to banquets like Dido's in Book 1.
 “Laticum libavit honorem” 1. 736, “Lenaeos humores” G. 3. 510. Here as there ‘Lenaeus’ seems to be a secondary adjective from ‘Lenaeus’ (Ληναῖος) regarded as a substantive. Comp. “laticem Lyaeum” 1. 686, and see on v. 552 below.
 Miscere, elsewhere applied to the effect of sound (above v. 160), is here applied to sound itself, expressing the vague confused rumbling of thunder. Thus, though not specially belonging to ‘inania,’ it is in perfect keeping with it. By a poetical variety the lightning is made the cause of the thunder.
 For the fact comp. 1. 365 foll.
 Dominus like ‘lord’ and ‘master’ in English, is used for a husband or lover in a sense which may be either invidious or the reverse according to the feelings of the speaker. See Forc. Here it is of course invidious, like “servire marito” v. 103. With ‘in regna recepit,’ which implies not merely a hospitable welcome but association in the kingdom, comp. v. 374, “Excepi, et regni demens in parte locavi.”
 Paris in his supposed effeminacy and in his conquest of the bride of another, γυναιμανής, ἠπεροπευτής. The reproach of effeminacy against the Phrygians generally belongs not to Homeric times, but to a later period. Comp. Eur. Or. 1369 foll. In the same way in 9. 617 they are stigmatized as the worthy worshippers of Cybele, which will further illustrate ‘semiviro comitatu.’
 The ‘mitra’ appears again as part of the Phrygian costume 9. 616. In Greece it appears to have been confined to women. See Dict. A. ‘Calantica.’ ‘Maeonia’ is used vaguely, as the Lydians and Phrygians were neighbours. Essenced hair is one of Turnus' reproaches against Aeneas 12. 100.
 With some hesitation I have restored, as Henry and Ribbeck have done, ‘subnexus,’ though found but in one MS., the Leyden. ‘Subnixus’ might stand, in nearly the same sense, the chin and hair being said to rest on the cap or capstrings, agreeably to the use of “fulcio” (E. 6. 53 note) and ἐρείδω. But it is more credible that the two words should have been confused, as their cognates not unfrequently are (see 1. 448., 5. 279), than that Virg. should have used the less appropriate in preference to the more appropriate. ‘Rapto potitur,’ enjoys his prey, ‘raptum’ as in 7. 749. So Helen is called τὸ ῥύσιον in relation to Paris Aesch. Ag. 535. From this line to 5. 37 Rom. is deficient.
 The force of ‘quippe’ here is very doubtful. There is no question that it is used in other places where a sarcasm is intended, e. g. 1. 39; but that does not enable us precisely to fix its meaning. Here it might refer more or less to the whole clause; ‘while we, forsooth, are bringing gifts to thy temples,’ &c. But perhaps it may be better to restrict its reference to ‘tuis;’ ‘we are bringing gifts to temples where we believe thou dwellest,’ ‘quippe tuis’ answering to ‘inanem.’ To understand it as causal with Wund. and Forb. is, I think, to mistake the sense of the passage. It seems more in keeping with the context to understand ‘famam’ generally of the reputation of Jove as a god than to explain it with Wund. specially of his reputed relation to Iarbas.
[219-237] ‘Jupiter heard him, looked towards Carthage, and calling Mercury, charged him to go and remind Aeneas that Venus had given a pledge on his behalf as the intended conqueror of Italy, and that even if he should be indifferent himself, he had to think of the rights of Ascanius.’