[768] With Ribbeck I have recalled ‘nomen,’ the reading of Heins. and Heyne, found in Pal., Med. a m. pr. and a quotation in Non. p. 307. The common reading is ‘numen:’ two MSS. have ‘lumen’ as a various reading, and Rom. and another MS. give ‘caelum.’ The last is adopted by Henry: but it seems to have arisen from a recollection of 4. 53, as has so often happened in similar cases. Between ‘numen’ and ‘nomen’ the question is more difficult. Wagn., reading ‘numen,’ appeals to the deification of Θάλασσα or Πόντος. Henry replies that Virg. speaks of gods of the sea, but not of the sea itself as a god. The sea is called “monstrum” below v. 849 in a passage somewhat similar to this: but such an analogy does not help us much. Admitting then that if the notion involved in ‘numen’ would be satisfactorily supported, the word would be appropriate and poetical, I think this passage is one of the innumerable exceptions to the critical rule that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. Virg. may have thought of the Homerie οὐκ ὀνομαστός, Od. 19. 260, 597., 23. 19. But it would be more satisfactory if a parallel could be adduced from his own works, though the expression may seem to be one which does not stand in need of any such support. The confusion is of course common: see 4. 94 note.
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.