In Hom. Deiphobus is Hector's favourite brother (Il. 22. 233 foll.), ranking apparently next to him. As such, he naturally receives Helen after the death of Paris. To his house accordingly Ulysses and Menelaus go on emerging from the horse (Od. 8. 517 foll.); but nothing is said of their doings there. Later legends gave particulars of his death, Dictys 5. 12, agreeing with Virg., Quinctus Smyrnaeus 13. 354 foll., simply mentioning the death, with a speech of Menelaus thereupon, Tryphiodorus, vv. 626 foll., going rather more into detail, but not to the extent of Virg. The house of Deiphobus was mentioned as blazing conspicuously 2. 310. “Atque hic” v. 860 below.
 The editors are divided between ‘vidit’ (Heyne, Ribbeck) and ‘videt et’ (Wagn., following Heins.). The MSS. may be said at once to favour neither and both, ‘videt’ without ‘et’ being the reading of fragm. Vat., Pal., Rom., Gud., &c., while Med. has ‘vidit et,’ ‘et’ being subsequently struck out. ‘Vidit’ alone is however found in one of Ribbeck's cursives and another a m. s., so that it seems safest to adopt it, though the insertion of ‘et’ after ‘videt’ would be a sufficiently easy conjecture, even without the quasisanction of Med. The description of Deiphobus' mutilation seems to show that Virg. was thinking of the vengeance sometimes inflicted by murderers on their victim, as by Clytaemnestra on Agamemnon (Aesch. Cho. 439, Soph. El. 445), either as a barbarous insult, or to prevent him from avenging himself in the lower world. The notion that the dead bear the disfigurements they received in life is further illustrated by Plato, Gorgias, p. 524 c. Similar mutilations are described Od. 18. 86., 22. 475.
 The last word of the preceding line repeated, as in 10. 821, 822, E. 6. 20, 21. The hands or arms are cut off, and perhaps fastened under the armpits (see Stephanus' Lex. μασχάλη). ‘Populata tempora’ and ‘truncas naris’ after ‘lacerum’ in apposition with ‘ora manusque ambas,’ though it is just conceivable that they may be intended to be in apposition with ‘Deiphobum,’ as if ‘lacera ora’ had preceded. Comp. 2. 557, “iacet ingens litore truncus, Avolsumque humeris caput, et sine nomine corpus.” Any how we may say that Virg. has intentionally deviated from the ordinary mode of expression, which would be “lacerum ora, populatum tempora, truncum naris.” A similar question may be raised about the construction of G. 4. 99, “Ardentes auro et paribus lita corpora guttis,” where Virg., in his love of poetical surplusage, has left it doubtful whether he means ‘lita corpora’ to be acc. in construction with ‘ardentes’ or nom. in apposition to it. He seems to have avoided saying ‘litae corpora’ partly for the sake of variety, partly that he might not separate ‘paribus guttis’ pointedly from ‘auro’ (comp. “Formosum paribus nodis atque aere” E. 5. 90). ‘Populata’ is a strong expression, the word being generally applied to ravaging a country.
 The nostrils were of course carried away with the nose: but Virg. wishes us to conceive of the place where the nose should be as the ‘nares,’ from which the nose had been lopped. ‘Inhonestus,’ ἀεικής.
 Adeo seems to emphasize ‘vix:’ see on E. 4. 11. ‘Pavitantem’ expresses the utter confusion and shame of a hero so maltreated. ‘Tegentem,’ seeking to cover the tokens of his suffering as he best might, doubtless by cowering and putting forth the stumps of his arms; unlike Eriphyle, who points to her wounds, above v. 446. ‘Et dira’ fragm. Vat., Rom., Gud., ‘ac dira’ Med., Pal.
 Comp. 4. 230., 5. 45. ‘Genus’ here, as in 5. 45, is probably in apposition with the vocative, ‘genus’ being applied to a single person below vv. 793, 839 &c. It would be possible however to construct it as an acc., like “qui genus?” 8. 114, “Nec genus indecores” 12. 25. The dialogue between Aeneas and Deiphobus resembles, though not closely, that between Ulysses and Agamemnon in the shades Od. 11. 397 foll.
 Optavit sumere: see on G. 2. 42. In the absence of other instances, it is difficult to fix the precise force of the word, which might be plausibly explained as a translation of either προαιρεῖσθαι or εὔχεσθαι, the latter in the Homeric sense of boasting.
 Cui tantum de te licuit has not been illustrated, though Forb. quotes an imitation of it from Lucan 9. 1024, “cui tantum fata licere In generum voluere tuum,” a passage which confirms the remark of Serv. and Donatus that ‘de te’ here virtually = ‘in te.’ The meaning evidently is, as we should say in colloquial English, ‘who has been able to get so much out of you?’ ‘sumere’ or some equivalent word being supplied from the context. ‘Who has had his will of you so far?’ ‘Suprema nocte,’ as in v. 513, the last night of Troy's existence.
 Tulit of report, with an object clause, like ‘ferunt.’ ‘Fessum caede,’ weary with killing. Donatus says “Magna laude afficit: non enim dixit occisum sed procubuisse lassatum.” We are doubtless however meant to suppose that Deiphobus was spent by wounds received as well as by the mere labour of slaying. ‘De caede’ was the reading before Pierius.
 “Confusae caedis acervum” 11. 207. ‘Confusae’ here may refer, as Forb. thinks, to the mixture of Greeks and Trojans; but it is not necessary. The point of the epithet is to show how the body came not to be identified.
 “‘Egomet,’ quasi dicat, non aliis commisi,” Serv. ‘Rhoeteo in litore’ Med., Pal. a m. s., Gud. a m. s., ‘Rhoeteo litore’ fragm. Vat., Rom., Pal. a m. p., Gud. a m. p. On the whole I have restored the latter with Ribbeck, though I am not satisfied that Lachmann is right on Lucr. 3.374 in condemning the former as a faulty elision. It certainly seems arbitrary to allow that Virg. elides a final long vowel or diphthong preceded by a diphthong (which, as Lachm. admits, takes place in nine instances), and yet to insist that he cannot have elided a long vowel or diphthong preceded by a long vowel, as in the present instance and 10. 179, where Lachm. omits ‘ab’ with no authority whatever. ‘Rhoeteo’ here used strictly of the Rhoeteian promontory, not, as in 3. 108, generally for Trojan. “Tumulum inanem” 3. 304 note.
 The triple invocation at a funeral is as old as Hom. Od. 9. 65, who makes Ulysses after his defeat by the Cicones not put to sea πρίν τινα τῶν δειλῶν ἑτάρων τρὶς ἕκαστον ἀῧσαι. Comp. also v. 231 above, 3. 68.
 Locum servant, preserve the memory of the place, like “et nunc servat honos sedem tuus” 7. 3. Aeneas means to say that the name of Deiphobus adhered to the spot, like those of Misenus (v. 235) and Palinurus (v. 381). It has not however survived, like theirs, if indeed it ever existed except in Virg.'s imagination. ‘Arma,’ hardly those of Deiphobus himself, as his body was not found, but others appropriated to him by Aeneas. Comp. v. 233 above. ‘Locus’ is the reading of one MS., the Lougobardic: but the common text is better. ‘Te’ not elided but shortened before ‘amice,’ after the Greek fashion, like ‘qui’ before ‘amant’ E. 8. 108. ‘Te’ of the body: comp. v. 362 note.
 Patria terra with ‘ponere,’ not with ‘decedens,’ though the juxtaposition of the words shows what kind of departure is meant, and so forestalls such objections as Peerlkamp's, if otherwise well founded, that ‘decedere’ alone would naturally imply death. ‘Ponere’ could not stand for burial by itself, and Gossrau's proposal to take ‘patria’ with ‘decedens,’ ‘terra’ with ‘ponere’ is not simple enough, and would besides rob the passage of its force, the point being not merely that Aeneas wished to bury Deiphobus, but that he wished to bury him at home.
[509-534] ‘Deiphobus acknowledges Aeneas' care, and goes on to tell how he was attacked while sleeping securely on the night of the sack of Troy, Helen, his wife, having disarmed him and introduced Menelaus and Ulysses into the chamber. He then asks Aeneas of his own adventures.’
 There is great diversity of reading at the beginning of this line. ‘Ad quae’ is found in fragm. Vat., and probably supported by Rom. ‘adque,’ and Med. a m. pr. and Pal. ‘atquae.’ The two last and similar varieties seem to have led transcribers to suppose that the real word was ‘atque,’ often spelt ‘adque:’ accordingly a later hand in Med. supplies ‘hic,’ which several MSS. follow, others reading ‘atque haec.’ ‘Ad quae haec’ is the reading of several copies, and was adopted by Heins., and two or three give ‘ad quem.’ Wagn. removes the points, so as to show that ‘o’ goes with ‘amice.’ ‘Relictum’ left undone, i. q. “nihil reliquisti infectum.” Comp. the use of ‘relinqui’ in such expressions as “relinquitur ut” for “restat ut” (see Forc.). ‘Tibi’ = ‘a te.’ The old editions added ‘est:’ but the best MSS. seem to omit it.
 Deiphobo is emphatic. ‘In raising the cenotaph you have not gone through a mere empty form, but have propitiated the ghost of the real Deiphobus.’ The mangled body may have been buried by those who did not know whose it was: otherwise we might infer that Deiphobus' appearance on the right side of the Styx was owing to Aeneas' pious care. ‘Funeris’ seems i. q. ‘cadaveris,’ as in 9. 491. The commentators suppose that ‘umbris’ is used in contradistinction to the actual body, which was not found: but the sense seems to be quite the contrary, as I have just remarked on ‘Deiphobo’—the honour has been paid to the very man Deiphobus and his very shade. For the plural see 5. 81 &c.
 Sed may merely imply, as Wagn. thinks, that Deiphobus is passing to the main thing which he has to speak of: but there seems to be a contrast, though not one which can be logically pressed, between Aeneas, who has done all he could for Deiphobus, and destiny and Helen, the authors of the evil. ‘Exitiale’ 2. 31. ‘Lacaenae’ 2. 601, where it is joined with ‘Tyndaridis.’ Helen is called ἡ Λάκαινα Eur. Tro. 861 with a similar feeling of contempt.
 ‘Mergere’ of involving in suffering vv. 429, 615. ‘Illa’ Helen, ‘haec’ with ‘monumenta,’ as ‘his malis’ shows. He speaks of the mangling he underwent as an enduring memorial of Helen. It is possible that Virg. may have been thinking of Od. 15. 125, which he has already imitated seriously 3. 486, δῶρόν τοι καὶ ἐγώ, τέκνον φίλε, τοῦτο δίδωμι, Μνῆμ᾽ Ἑλένης χειρῶν? At any rate a sneer is evidently intended by the choice of a word generally connected with honourable associations.
 With the fact comp. 2. 248, and the celebrated chorus in Eur. Hec. 905 foll.
 ‘You must needs remember it only too well.’
[515, 516] See on 2. 237, 283.
 So Amata pretends to lead an orgie, 7. 385 foll., “simulato numine Bacchi.” ‘Orgia’ with ‘euantis,’ a Greek construction, εὐαζούσας τὰ ὄργια, ‘orgia’ being virtually a cogn. acc., equivalent to the cry ‘euoe.’ The word ‘euantis’ occurs Catull. 62 (64). 391. ‘Circum’ round the city.
 The torch is a characteristic of Bacchus, Eur. Bacch. 145, Soph. O. T. 313.
 We may reconcile this story with the narrative in 2. 254 foll. by supposing that Helen gave a signal for the fleet to start, and that Agamemnon when well on his way gave a second signal to Sinon, who then opened the horse: but it is simpler to suppose that the present account is an independent one, Virg. having forgotten that he had already given another, as we must certainly presume that when he wrote the lines about Helen introducing Menelaus, lower down, he did not remember the account of Helen hiding from Greeks and Trojans alike, 2. 567 foll., if the latter is genuine.
 Confectum curis has been questioned, Ribbeck reading ‘choreis’ from Schrader's conj.: but though the night had been passed in revelry, Deiphobus might well be spent with the labours of the siege. See on 2. 268. ‘Confectum curis somnoque gravatum’ seems to be a translation of Il. 10. 98, καμάτῳ ἀδηκότες ἠδὲ καὶ ὕπνῳ, or Od. 6. 2, ὕπνῳ καὶ καμάτῳ ἀρημένος.
 Habuit as in vv. 362, 670.
 For the ironical use of ‘egregius’ Germ. comp. 4. 93. He also refers to Od. 16. 281 foll., where Ulysses speaks of removing all the weapons from the hall to the upper chamber, that the suitors may be unprotected.
 ‘Emovet’ fragm. Vat. a m. p., Rom., Gud., ‘amovet’ fragm. Vat. a m. s., Med. I have preferred the former, as the rarer word, and so more likely to have been altered. Pal. has ‘et movet,’ corrected into ‘amovet.’ It matters little whether we explain the change from ‘emovet’ to ‘subduxerat’ by saying that it is the same time regarded from two different points of view, or by making the removal of the sword, as the first weapon Deiphobus would look for, prior to that of the other arms. Heyne prefers the former view, Forb. the latter. ‘Capiti’ is probably to be taken strictly, not as Burm. thinks, of the pillow or place where the head was to lie, though ‘ad caput’ is undoubtedly so used in Suet. Dom. 17, to which he refers. The removal went on while Deiphobus was asleep, Helen not having retired to rest with him, but being apparently engaged in her orgie. So when Judith kills Holofernes (Judith 13. 6) “she came to the pillar of the bed, which was at Holofernes' head, and took down his falchion from thence.” Med. had ‘capitis’ originally. ‘Fidus’ of a sword 7. 640.
 Menelaus is contemptuously called ‘amans,’ as if he were a new lover whose heart Helen was anxious to win. Possibly however ‘amanti’ may be used proleptically, like “nec dextrae erranti deus afuit” 7. 498.
 Famam: Helen is represented as thinking of her public character as well as her interest in Menelaus' affections, supposing that by a signal act of vengeance on Troy and of service to Greece she will recover her good name as a true wife and as a lover of her country. ‘Famam exstinguere’ 4. 323. The feeling is not unlike that of the Homeric Helen, Il. 6. 358.
 Deiphobus hurries over the circumstances of his butchery, which Virg. doubtless felt had been sufficiently described by its effects. Rom. and some others give ‘thalamos,’ which Heyne prefers: but the dat., besides being better supported, is the rarer construction. It is not found elsewhere in Virg., but it occurs repeatedly in Virg.'s imitator, Silius: see Forc. ‘Inrumpunt,’ Menelaus and his companions. ‘Additur’ is recalled by Wagn. from Med., fragm. Vat., and others, ‘comes additur’ being equivalent to ‘addit se comitem.’ ‘Additus’ is the other reading, found in Pal., Rom., &c. Retaining it, we might possibly connect it with ‘inrumpunt,’ as if Virg. had said “inrumpunt thalamo et Menelaus et Aeolides.” For the presence of Ulysses see above on v. 494.
 Hortator scelerum of Ulysses, as “scelerum inventor” 2. 164 note. “Cum eius studii tibi et hortator et magister esset domi,” Cic. De Orat. 1. 55, cited by Forc. ‘Aeolides,’ referring to the post-Homeric slander which made Ulysses really the son of Sisyphus, who was son of Aeolus. See Soph. Aj. 190, Phil. 417 &c. ‘Di, talia Graiis’ &c., comp. Soph. Phil. 315, οἷς Ὀλύμπιοι θεοὶ Δοῖεν ποτ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἀντίποιν᾽ ἐμοῦ παθεῖν.
 Instaurate i. q. ‘rependite,’ a sense easily deduced from that of renewing. ‘Pio ore:’ if the prayer is one which it is right to make. So Hyllus in Soph. Trach. 809, εἰ θέμις δ᾽ ἐπεύχομαι, θέμις δ᾽ κ.τ.λ., where however the doubt is more natural, as it is a son invoking vengeance on a mother. Perhaps then Virg. means Deiphobus to ask the gods for vengeance, if he has been their true worshipper, like Chryses Il. 1. 39 foll. Rom. reads ‘pios,’ which might be explained as in 2. 536, 4. 382, but is far more likely to have been corrupted from the initial letter of the following word.
 Imitated from Od. 11. 155 foll., where Ulysses is similarly questioned by his mother.
 A few MSS. give ‘attulerunt,’ which might be worth considering. See E. 4. 61. Virg. however has blended the direct and indirect question, taking the mood from the latter, the order from the former. ‘Pelagine venis erroribus actus’ is a question more suited to Anticleia (Od. 11, l. c.) than to Deiphobus, as the Homeric Hades was beyond the Ocean river, and approached by ship. The question however is evidently intended to mean, ‘Have you come to Cumae by stress of weather, or on a special errand?’ Deiphobus, we may remember, would be ignorant that Aeneas had any object in coming to Italy. ‘Pelagi erroribus’ expresses generally what is put more distinctly in 7. 199, “Sive errore viae, seu tempestatibus acti, Qualia multa mari nautae patiuntur in alto.”
 Quae Fortuna is rightly explained by Wagn. as ‘quae alia fortuna.’ Forb. comp. Aesch. Prom. 118, “πόνων ἐμῶν θεωρός, ἢ τί δὴ θέλων;” So Milton, Comus, “By falsehood, or discourtesy, or why?” For ‘quae’ after ‘an’ comp. Ter. Adelph. 3. 4. 22, “an quid est etiam amplius?” Plaut. Asin. 3. 3. 127, “an quid olim hominist Salute melius?” instances which seem to show that it is indefinite here (comp. “num quae” &c.), not, as Wagn. thinks, pleonastically interrogative. One or two MSS. have ‘aut’ (comp. 3. 311, 338), which is sometimes confused with ‘an.’ Burm. and Heyne had made ‘quae’ the relative, supplying ‘fortuna (abl.) venis’ from ‘fortuna,’ which would be intolerably harsh. The question is like 3. 609, “quae deinde agitet fortuna, fateri.”
 Adires follows ‘fatigat,’ as if it had been ‘fatigavit.’ See Madv. § 382, obs. 3. We may say that Deiphobus regards the stress of fortune first as a continuing agency, afterwards as having had a past effect in making Aeneas undertake the journey to the shades. ‘Sine sole:’ Eur. has ἀνηλίους δόμους of the shades Alc. 852, ἀνηλίων μυχῶν Herc. F. 607. See also on v. 462 above. ‘Turbida’ gives the notion of obscurity, and perhaps also that of formless confusion. “A land of the shadow of death, without any order,” Job 10. 22. Perhaps Virg. meant to translate Od. 11. 94, ὄφρα ἴδῃ νέκυας καὶ ἀτερπέα χῶρον.
[535-547] ‘The Sibyl interrupts them, reminding Aeneas that he has the rest of the lower world to see. Deiphobus retires.’