In limine primo, alluding to the Roman custom of burying new-born infants “in suggrundis,” under the eaves of the house, as has been pointed out by a writer in the Saturday Review, Sept. 25, 1858, art. on Gladstone's Homeric Studies. Here of course it is the threshold of Orcus that is spoken of. Wakef., whom Ribbeck follows, ingeniously punctuated after ‘flentes,’ connecting ‘in limine primo’ with ‘vitae,’ which he separated from ‘exsortis’—an arrangement supported by Lucan 2. 106, quoted by Cerda, “nec primo in limine vitae Infantis miseri nascentia rumpere fata,” but on the whole repudiated by the present passage, even independently of the reviewer's illustration. Plato deals very summarily with these infants in the vision of Er, Rep. 10, p. 615 c, τῶν δὲ εὐθὺς γενομένων [ἀποθανόντων] καὶ ὀλίγον χρόνον βιούντων πέρι ἄλλα ἔλεγεν οὐκ ἄξια μνήμης.
 “‘Exsortis,’ expertis: quos Graeci ἀκλήρους dicunt,” Serv. “Ab ubere raptum” 7. 484. Lucr. 5.226 on the contrary thinks the cries of the living infant reasonable, on account of the sorrows which await him in life.
 Repeated 11. 28. Muretus V. L. 13. 2 explains this line by a reference to a custom of burying those who had died prematurely before daybreak, the calamity being thought too great for the sun to look upon—an explanation which, when taken in connexion with the illustration discovered in v. 427, is perhaps not hastily to be rejected, though of course it cannot be applied to 11. 28. If we take ‘atra dies’ in its ordinary sense, it may be modelled on the various uses of ἦμαρ in Hom. ‘Mergere’ of plunging in doom vv. 512, 615. ‘Acerbus’ is specially used of untimely death, as in Cic. (?) De Domo Sua c. 16, quoted by Forc., “funus etsi miserum atque acerbum fuisset,” like “crudus.”
 The meaning seems clear, that a separate place is assigned to those who have met their death by unjust condemnation. It has been asked why they should be made to suffer: but there is no suffering in this part of the shades; there is merely the absence of the enjoyment of life, the Homeric condition of the dead which Achilles declares to be worse than the lowest function on earth. That they should endure this is not unjust: the iniquity which dismissed them from life does not make their lives good or bad; that is decided by Minos, as we shall see immediately. We should expect however that they would not occupy this place permanently, but that on the rehearing of their case some would be despatched to Tartarus, others to Elysium. But Virg. does not say this, and if we compare the case of these persons with those of the infants and the suicides, we may doubt whether he intended it. Infants remain in their limbo apparently because they have had no opportunity of showing whether they were worthy of Elysium or of Tartarus; those who have cut short their own lives are not to be credited with the good or evil of their lives, but are consigned at once and for ever to a twilight condition like that imagined by Hom.: and so perhaps the victims of unjust sentences may be dealt with as those who having accidentally come into the state of death are exempted alike from reward and punishment. But we must not probe Virg.'s meaning too deeply: he has deserted the simplicity of Hom. for something far more complicated, and it is not surprising that in borrowing details from other sources he should have been led occasionally to combine inconsistencies. Warburton thought the reference here was to a story in Plato's Gorgias, pp. 523 foll., where the establishment of infernal judges is said to have been owing to the inequality of the sentences originally passed by living judges who had to decide the condition after death of those who were still in the body. Virg. may have thought of this: but his words are hardly reconcilable with it, as Warburton admits by his proposal to alter ‘crimine’ into ‘tempore.’ Virg. coincides with Plato in putting the place of judgment before the spot where the roads to Tartarus and Elysium diverge (vv. 540 foll.), and also in particularizing Minos, who according to Plato is a supreme judge of appeal, Asiatics being judged in the first instance by Rhadamanthus, Europeans by Aeacus. Virg. may also have thought of another passage in Plato, of which Cerda reminds us—that in the Apology, p. 41 B, where Socrates dwells on the pleasure of meeting in the shades those who, like himself, have died in consequence of an unjust sentence, εἴ τις τῶν παλαιῶν διὰ κρίσιν ἄδικον τέθνηκε, such as Palamedes and the greater Ajax, though it is clear that if Plato had been asked where he intended to place these, he would have replied, in Elysium. There still remains a difficulty about the construction, as ‘mortis’ may be connected either with ‘damnati’ or with ‘crimine.’ Perhaps in the absence of any instance of ‘crimen mortis’=“crimen capitale” (comp. “caussa capitis,” “iudicium capitis”), it will be safer to adopt the former, ‘damnatus’ with the gen. of the punishment being sufficiently common (see Forc. s. v.).
 Hae sedes seems to be used generally of the lower world, so that this and the two following lines will be virtually parenthetical. At the same time it would be too much to suppose that Virg. meant to commit himself to stating that the jurisdiction of Minos extended to all those who came down into the shades; we should rather infer, as was hinted in the last note, that some at least of those who died prematurely were left without any judgment at all, and consigned neither to Tartarus nor to Elysium. What the effect of this new judgment is on those on whom it is undoubtedly meant to operate, the falsely condemned, he has not told us, and perhaps he did not clearly realize himself. Meantime in this line, as in those that follow, he has introduced the phraseology of the Roman law, ‘sine sorte’ apparently referring to the “sortitio iudicum,” the choice by lot of “iudices” for a particular case out of the whole judicial body. (The notion of Serv. and some early critics that the reference is to the drawing of lots to decide the order in which the causes should come on is far less likely.) In any case Minos is represented as ‘quaesitor,’ the name given to the presiding magistrate on a Roman criminal trial, who was assisted by the ‘iudices’ just mentioned. To say any thing definite about those who in the world below would answer to these ‘iudices’ would have been embarrassing to Virg., as, if Rhadamanthus and Aeacus were meant, they would hold their places without “sortitio,” while it would not be easy to conceive of a judicial body among the shades themselves: so the poet as usual leaves the matter in obscurity. The pseudoAsconius however, commenting on Cic. Verr. Act. 1. 10, refers to this passage in the following words: “Ad hanc similitudinem poeta Vergilius Minoem, iudicem apud inferos, tanquam si praetor sit rerum capitalium, ‘quaesitorem’ appellat: dat ibi sortitionem, ubi ‘urnam’ nominat: dat electionem iudicum, cum dicit ‘consiliumque vocat:’ dat cognitionem facinorum, cum dicit ‘vitasque et crimina discit.’” But though ‘consilium’ is the technical term for the ‘iudices’ in relation to the presiding magistrate, and the word is found in Pal. and Gud. a m. p., the context is against it, as we should expect the ‘silentes’ to be the same as those whose ‘vitae et crimina’ are the subject of cognizance, though the position of ‘que’ does not necessarily prove this (see on G. 2. 119). Mr. Long suggests that the ‘consilium’ may consist of those who have been tried and pronounced innocent. On the whole it seems better to retain ‘concilium’ and refer it to the assemblage of those who are to be tried. Sen. H. F. 735 has “Non unus alta sede quaesitor sedens Iudicia trepidis sera sortitur reis,” an evident imitation of Virg., but not showing what he understood by “sortitio,” though he goes on to mention Minos, Rhadamanthus, and Aeacus as judges in separate courts. ‘Datae,’ assigned to their occupants: the word however seems to have been chosen as associated with ‘sorte’ in the expression “sorte datus,” which occurs 1. 139.
 In Hom., as Heyne remarks, Excursus 2, ‘De Iudicibus apud Inferos,’ Minos is seen judging (Od. 11. 568 foll.), but apparently only as other persons follow in the shades the occupations which engrossed them in life, e. g. Orion, who is mentioned immediately after, the sport of hunting. (See on 8. 670.) ‘Urnam movet:’ comp. Hor. 3 Od. 1. 16, “Omne capax movet urna nomen,” and perhaps Id. 1 S. 9. 30, “divina mota anus urna.” ‘Silentes’ of the dead is common in later poets: see Forc.
Maesti anticipates vv. 436, 437.
‘Letum sibi parere’ like ‘mortem sibi
consciscere,’ and similar phrases. Virg.
seems to have had in his mind Lucr. 3.79:
“Et saepe usque adeo, mortis formidine,
Percipit humanos odium lucisque videndae,
Ut sibi consciscant maerenti pectore letum.
 Insontes, because they had done nothing worthy of death, so that their death was gratuitous. ‘Manu’ almost = ‘ipsi.’ Forb. comp. Prop. 5. 11. 17, “Inmatura licet, tamen huc non noxia veni,” where the contrast is between capital punishment and other untimely deaths. We may also contrast the case of those who were ordered to kill themselves. “Mortem orat; taedet caeli convexa tueri” 4. 451.
Proiecere animas, “prodigally
throw their lives away,” as Dryden renders
it. “Proiicere corpus” occurs Catull.
62 (64). 82 of Theseus' sacrificing his life
for his country. So “animae prodigum
Paullum” Hor. 1 Od. 12. 37. Comp. 11.
360, “in aperta pericula civis Proiicis,”
where the use of the word is substantially
the same. ‘Quam vellent’ &c. is from
the celebrated lines Od. 11. 488 foll.
“Μὴ δή μοι θάνατόν γε παραύδα, φαίδιμ᾽
βουλοίμην κ᾽ ἐπάρουρος ἐὼν θητευέμεν ἄλλῳ,
ἀνδρὶ παρ᾽ ἀκλήρῳ, ᾦ μὴ βίοτος πολὺς εἴη,
ἢ πᾶσιν νεκύεσσι καταφθιμένοισιν ἀνάσσειν.
 Pauperiem and ‘duros labores’ are perhaps chosen to indicate the things for fear of which men have been driven to death—‘the whips and scorns of time, the oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely.’
 “Fata obstant” 4. 440, a reading which some MSS. (including an obliterated correction in Med.) and the Dresden Serv. give here, and Henry prefers. There is no force in the objection that ‘fas’ elsewhere in Virg. is spoken of as permitting, not as denying. “Fas prohibet” occurs in Ov. Trist. 2. 205, quoted by Forc., and when Virg. G. 1. 269 talks of “fas et iura sinunt” he implies that ‘fas’ may forbid as well as allow. Θέμις is the Greek equivalent of ‘fas’ (comp. Auson. Technopaegnion de Deis, v. 1, “prima deum Fas, Quae Themis est Graiis”), and is similarly used of permitting: yet we have ἀποστατεῖ θέμις Aesch. Eum. 414 in the sense of οὐ θέμις. The remainder of the line and the whole of v. 439 are repeated from G. 4. 479, 480, with the exception of ‘tristi,’ which there is ‘tarda.’ Here however there is a variant, ‘tristis . . . undae,’ found in Pal., Gud. (which has ‘unda’ a m. s.), and doubtless originally in both Rom. and Med., and adopted by Ribbeck. But the parallel in G. 4 is against it, and Serv. knew nothing of ‘undae,’ preferring ‘tristi’ to ‘tristis’ “ne duo sint epitheta.” Lastly, some inferior MSS. have ‘innabilis.’
[440-476] ‘They then come to what are called the Mourning Fields, tenanted by those who have died of love. Here Aeneas sees Dido, whom he tries to soothe, telling her that he knew not what would be the consequences to her of his departure, and that he went away most unwillingly, because the gods ordered it. She maintains sullen silence, and at last breaks away, leaving him in sorrow.’
 For ‘hinc’ Rom. and Med. have ‘hic.’ ‘Fusi partem in omnem,’ spreading far and wide. ‘Fusus’ is common in Virg. of persons lying on the ground, of flowing hair, &c., and hence he uses it here of extension generally. The only parallel quoted by Forc. is Lucan 4. 670, “non fusior ulli Terra fuit domino,” perhaps an imitation of Virg. The reason why this district is represented as extensive is to indicate not so much the number of its inhabitants as the scope given for solitude, as Heyne remarks. ‘Monstrantur’ seems to be used generally, not necessarily implying that the place is pointed out by the Sibyl to Aeneas, but merely that the spectator who does not know them has an opportunity of seeing them. So 7. 568, “Hic specus horrendum et saevi spiracula Ditis Monstrantur.” Comp. the use of “dicitur” v. 107 note. Possibly it may be no more than a middle, i. q. ‘se monstrant,’ meet the view.
 The fields are said to mourn, as being the abode of mourners. It does not appear that Virg. borrowed the name from any other source. The nearest approach to it is perhaps a passage in the Axiochus, attributed to Plato, § 19, where the judgment of the dead is said to take place in the Plain of Truth. ‘Nomine dicunt’ v. 242 above.
 For ‘quos’ one MS. has ‘quas:’ but the presence of Sychaeus v. 474 shows that the place is not confined to women, though they are doubtless the greater number, as appears from the list ensuing, vv. 445 foll., which, as we shall see, is suggested by Hom. For ‘peredit’ the first reading of Med. and other MSS. give ‘peremit,’ which would be less good, as failing to express the gradual nature of the decay. Comp. Tibull. 1. 4. 18, “Longa dies molli saxa peredit aqua,” Lucr. 1.326. “vesco sale saxa peresa.”
 Cura of love 4. 1 &c.
 The heroines form a large part of Ulysses' experience in the shades, Od. 11. 225—329: Virg. introduces them much more briefly, probably on Dido's account, and so he gives them a place in the ‘lugentes campi,’ though only a portion of them can be said to have died for love. The present line is made up of two in Hom. Φαίδρην τε Πρόκριν τε ἴδον καλήν τ᾽ Ἀριάδνην, v. 321, and Μαῖράν τε Κλυμένην τε ἴδον, στυγερήν τ᾽ Ἐριφύλην, v. 326, ‘Procrim’ is restored by Wagn. for ‘Procrin’ from Med. and the Dresd. Serv.
 Caeneus is restored by Wagn. from all the MSS. for ‘Caenis,’ a conjecture of Heins. supported by a correction in the Dresd. Serv. The feminine appellative would introduce a somewhat more regular construction, though, as Wagn. points out, Caeneus transformed back to a woman would naturally be expressed “Caeneus in veterem revolutus figuram:” but Virg. has chosen to express the confusion of the sexes by a certain confusion in the position, not perhaps in the construction, of the words. The construction seems to be, as Wagn. has seen, ‘Caeneus iuvenis quondam, nunc femina revoluta.’ The licence assumed by Latin writers in making a verb or adj. agree not with the proper subject of the sentence, but with something placed in apposition to it, is well known. Wagn. comp. Sil. 11. 25, “Iam vero Eridani tumidissimus accola, Celtae, Incubuere.” See also Madv. § 217.
 Wakef. puts a comma at ‘rursus,’ so as to connect it with ‘nunc femina:’ but the ordinary punctuation seems better. As to the pleonasm ‘rursus revoluta’ see on v. 751 below. ‘Revoluta’ may be intended to suggest the notion of a cyclical period (comp. the use of ‘volvere’ of fate 1. 22., 3. 376); but instances are quoted by Forc. from Livy and Tacitus, where it seems to mean returning to a thing or being thrown back on it. Comp. Livy 4. 12, “Revolutus ad dispensationem inopiae.” Rom. has ‘revocata.’
 Recens a volnere as we say, fresh from her wound. Hand Turs. 1. 46 comp. Varro R. R. 2. 8, “pullum asininum a partu recentem.” The following description is modelled on Ulysses' attempt to accost Ajax Od. 11. 543 foll.
 “Troius heros” 8. 530. Forb. is right in removing the comma after ‘heros’ so as to connect ‘quam’ with ‘iuxta stetit’ and ‘adgnovit,’ as there can be no need with Wagn. in his larger ed., to assume a gratuitous anacoluthon.
 With Ribbeck I have recalled ‘umbras,’ the reading of Heyne, supported by Rom., Pal., &c., for ‘umbram’ (Med. &c.), so as to show clearly that ‘obscuram’ belongs to Dido. Henry rightly contends against referring it to ‘umbram,’ remarking that Virg. does not place the subst. at the end of one line and the epithet at the beginning of another, unless where the epithet is intended to be forcible, as in vv. 492, 493 below, and that to imagine any particular force in ‘obscuram’ as an epithet of ‘umbram’ would spoil the sense, leading us to suppose the darkness to be greater than it was really intended to be. Comp. v. 268, “Ibant obscuri sola sub nocte per umbram,” and also v. 340, where “multa umbra” does not really support ‘umbram obscuram’ here.
 From Apoll. R. 4. 1479, “τὼς ἰδέειν, ὡς τίς τε νέῳ ἐνὶ ἤματι μήνην Ἢ ἴδεν, ἢ ἐδόκησεν ἐπαχλύουσαν ἰδέσθαι”, where it is Lynceus that sees Heracles. Ἐπαχλύουσαν may be said slightly to confirm the reference of ‘obscuram’ to Dido. Jahn in his 2nd ed., reading ‘umbram,’ connects ‘qualem’ with it. ‘Primo mense,’ ἱσταμένου μηνός. Comp. “primi solis” v. 255 above.
 Demisit lacrimas seems to be translated from Od. 16. 191, δάκρυον ἧκε χαμᾶζε. Comp. “demitte cruorem” G. 4. 542, though there it is letting the blood of another that is spoken of. Here as there the best MSS. give ‘dimisit.’
 Verus nuntius seems best understood of the blaze of the funeral pyre, from which Aeneas conjectured Dido's fate, 5. 3 foll. Comp. Aesch. Supp. 180, ὁρῶ κόνιν, ἄναυδον ἄγγελον στρατοῦ. The other alternatives offered by Serv. are both less likely, that some message had been sent to Aeneas, though Virg., as in many other cases, has suppressed the fact, and that the reference is to Mercury's intimation 4. 564: indeed the first would be inconsistent with 5. 5. “Verus nuntius” 3. 310. With ‘ergo’ Forb. comp. Hor. 1 Od. 24. 5, “Ergo Quinctilium perpetuus sopor Urguet?” Id. 2 S. 5. 101, “Ergo nunc Dama sodalis Nusquam est?”
 Aeneas' knowledge is here perhaps too definite, though he might conjecture that the sword had been the means of her death. This is Serv.'s reason for preferring to suppose that a messenger actually arrived. ‘Extrema secutam’ may be an imitation of the Homeric πότμον ἐπισπεῖν (Il. 6. 412., 15. 495), as Forb. thinks, though ‘secutam’ here seems to indicate a voluntary end, seeking for what is absent, not yielding to compulsion, which appears to be the Homeric notion. ‘Extrema’ of death 1. 219.
 The position seems to indicate that ‘funeris’ is the emphatic word; not ‘was I the cause of thy death?’ but ‘was it death that I was the means of bringing on thee?’ “Per sidera testor, Per superos” 3. 599.
 “Per, si qua est, quae restet adhuc mortalibus usquam Intemerata fides” 2. 142, where, as here, ‘fides’ = “id quod fidem facit.” Aeneas does not mean to question the existence of faith or honour in the shades, as Serv. thinks, but speaks vaguely, either as not knowing what their most sacred objects of adjuration are (Donatus), and so appealing to Dido's consciousness, or in a spirit of reverential mystery.
 Imitated from Catull. 64 (66). 39, “Invita, O regina tuo de vertice cessi, Invita: adiuro teque tuumque caput,” which is said by the hair of Berenice to its mistress. Aeneas here admits more than he admitted when speaking to Dido in life (4. 333 foll.), where all that he said was that he was going to Italy because the gods ordered him, his real will being to settle at Troy: it accords however with what we are told of his feelings 4. 281, 332, 395, 448.
 Loca senta situ is a translation of Ἀΐδεω δόμον εὐρώεντα Od. 10. 512 &c. (comp. Il. 20. 65.) ‘Sentus’ occurs Ter. Eun. 2. 2. 5, “Video sentum, squalidum, aegrum, pannis annisque obsitum” of a poor man. From this, which seems the only authority anterior to Virg.'s, we may assume that here it must = ‘horrida’ or ‘inculta.’ Ov. M. 4. 436 copies Virg.: Prudentius (see Forc.) uses it in a way which shows that he connected it with ‘sentis.’ This may or may not be the case: at any rate there seems no reason for supposing the reference here to be to briars or other obstacles, or to any thing but that roughness which a locality would acquire when left to itself, and which is in fact expressed by ‘situs,’ G. 1. 72. Serv. remarks that mould forms on things not exposed to the sun. Comp. Aesch. Eum. 387, ἀνηλίῳ λάπᾳ δυσοδοπαίπαλα δερκομένοισι καὶ δυσομμάτοις ὁμῶς. “Noctemque profundam” 4. 26.
 From vv. 468, 469 we should have inferred that Dido remained motionless while Aeneas was speaking: we must suppose however that she was already moving away, as she does v. 472, and so that the speech more or less represents all that he said to her, even the tears with which he pursued her as she fled, v. 476. This is confirmed by ‘incepto’ v. 470. “Teque amplexu ne subtrahe nostro” v. 698 below.
 “Quem fugis?” E. 2. 60 note. Taken in the ordinary way, the words will mean “Whom do you suppose yourself to be flying from in flying from me?” and may be illustrated by Horace's playful words (1 Od. 23. 9) “Atqui non ego te tigris ut aspera Gaetulusve leo frangere persequor.” ‘Extremum est hoc quod te adloquor,’ a cogn. acc., as frequently in Greek. Heyne comp. Soph. Aj. 871, “προσεννέπω Πανύστατον δή, κοὔποτ᾽ αὖθις ὕστερον”. So Pers. 5. 153, “fugit hora: hoc quod loquor inde est.” He is addressing her for the last time, as his place after death will not be the same as hers, as Serv. rightly remarks.
 Torva tuentem animum is strange in Latin poetry, though it would not be thought too bold in Greek: there is no reason however to suppose a corruption in the text (Jortin conj. ‘animam,’ Peerlkamp ‘ardenti—tuenti,’ Heyne suspects ‘animum—ciebat’ to be interpolated), or to resort to forced constructions, such as Heyne's, who proposes to separate ‘animum’ from ‘tuentem’ ( = κατὰ θυμόν). ‘Animus’ is sometimes used in apposition with a person, as in 5. 751, and the mind may naturally be said to look out through the eyes—considerations which would encourage the poet to risk an expression like this. We have already had a similar one in 5. 292 note. ‘Lacrimas ciebat,’ his own, not Dido's, as Serv. observes rightly. Comp. 3. 344, “Talia fundebat lacrimans longosque ciebat Incassum fletus.” ‘Lenibat’ Madv. § 115 b.
 1. 482.
 See on v. 465.
 Stet, a poetical substitute for the verb subst. as perhaps in Hor. 1 Od. 9. 1, “Vires ut alta stet nive candidum,” though there the addition of “alta nive” makes a difference. ‘Than if she had the fixedness of stubborn flint or a crag of Marpessa.’ Comp. the use of ‘stare’ of a statue E. 7. 32 note. Marpessa was a mountain of Paros, so that Virg. compares Dido to marble. The epithet is one of the class adverted to vol. i. pp. 7, 8. The whole picture may be taken, as Valckenaer thinks, from Eur. Med. 27 foll., where the attitude of Medea is similarly described and similarly compared: but the thought is common.
 Nemus umbriferum: doubtless the ‘myrtea silva’ of v. 443. ‘Coniunx pristinus,’ as Sychaeus is called “coniunx antiquus” 4. 458. ‘Pristinus’ occurs again 10. 143., 12. 424 in the same sense of ‘former,’ ‘original:’ the early grammarians however made a difficulty about it, as appears from Serv., “prior: quod difficile invenitur: nam de hoc sermone quaerit et Probus et alii.” Heyne remarks that the old grammarians questioned many things about which no one now has any doubt, and that they are to be used rather as authorities for information otherwise gained independently of them than as actual sources of fresh knowledge. It matters little whether we suppose any reference to Dido's so-called second marriage to Aeneas: the relation is so designated, directly or indirectly, more than once in Book 4, and so may be intended here: but the passage does not require it.
 ‘Where she enjoys the full sympathy of Sychaeus,’ not necessarily on the subject of this new aggression of Aeneas, though we need not exclude it. He ‘answers all her cares and equals all her love,’ as Dryden renders it more closely than usual: ‘respondet’ being not necessarily confined to language, though including it, ‘curis’ the dat., not, as Gossrau thinks, the abl., so that ‘respondet curis’ virtually = ‘aequat amorem’ (Wagn.). For the position of ‘Sychaeus’ in the second clause see on 3. 162.
 Nec minus, notwithstanding her sullen flight. ‘Casu iniquo,’ Dido's misfortunes, the thought of which was revived and intensified in Aeneas' mind by what had just passed, not, as Wagn. thinks, his own repulse. I have restored ‘concussus,’ the reading of Med., Pal., and Gud., for ‘percussus’ (Rom.), which, as the commoner word, is more likely to be due to a copyist. We have already had “casu concussus acerbo” 5. 700, “casu concussus amici” ib. 869. Wagn.'s defence of ‘percussus’ as giving a more appropriate sense is founded on his interpretation of ‘casu iniquo,’ and may fall with it. There is a further variety ‘perculsus’ found in some MSS.
 Lacrimis Rom., Pal., Gud., ‘lacrimans’ Med. With Ribbeck, I prefer the former, which is supported by 12. 72, “ne me lacrimis neve omine tanto Prosequere . . . euntem,” “Prosequitur dictis” 6. 898, “euntis . . . Prosequitur votis” 9. 310, “Prosequitur venia” 11. 107. ‘Lacrimans’ may have come from a recollection of 2. 107, “Prosequitur pavitans.” ‘Euntem’ belongs to ‘prosequitur’ as well as to ‘miseratur,’ though we might say that ‘miseratur euntem’ is another way of expressing ‘prosequitur lacrimis,’ ‘euntem’ showing that ‘miseratur’ = ‘miserans sequitur.’ Heins. restored ‘miseratur’ from Med., Rom., &c. for ‘miseratus,’ which in some editions was followed by ‘est’ after ‘euntem.’ Ulysses says Od. 11. 565 that he would have made Ajax speak to him or would have spoken to him himself, if he had not been curious to see the other shades.
[477-493] ‘They next come to the place of dead heroes. The Trojans who fell at Troy crowd round Aeneas; the Greeks are scared.’