Iovis monitis 4. 331. Jupiter is conceived as generally overlooking and directing the contest; but Virg. may also be specially thinking of Il. 15. 592 foll., where the Trojans are inspirited against the Greeks by Zeus (Διὸς δ᾽ ἐτέλειον ἐφετμάς &c.), a passage which also supplied him with the simile of the wave-beaten rock v. 693 (where see note). There is, it need hardly be said, no contradiction between the facts that Mezentius is no believer in the gods, and that he should be urged by Jupiter to enter the battle. ‘Succedit pugnae,’ comes to the battle in place of Turnus: comp. “Ut pro me hostili paterer succedere dextrae” v. 847 below: “(Turnus) Succedat pugnae” (in place of Camilla) 11. 826. See on v. 439 above.
[691, 692] For Mezentius and his relation to the Etruscans, 8. 841 foll. ‘Odiis telisque instant’ is a conceit of the same kind as “ad caelum palmas cum voce tetendit:” see on v. 667. “Scio acerba meorum Circumstare odia” says Mezentius v. 905 below. ‘Uni, uni’ like “ora, ora” below v. 821.
 In Il. 15. 618 foll. the Greeks resisting Hector are compared to a seabeaten rock: Ἴσχον γὰρ πυργηδὸν ἀρηρότες, ἠΰτε πέτρη Ἠλίβατος, μεγάλη, πολιῆς ἁλὸς ἐγγὺς ἐοῦσα, Ἥτε μένει λιγέων ἀνέμων λαιψηρὰ κέλευθα, Κύματά τε τροφόεντα, τά τε προσερεύγεται αὐτήν (Heyne). Cerda also comp. Il. 17. 747 foll., which is much to the same effect. Virg. has the same simile 7. 586 foll. of Latinus resisting the clamour of his subjects.
 Manent Med. a m. p., ‘manet’ a m. s. for “manens:” perhaps a reminiscence of “mens inmota manet” 4. 449. Virg. had begun the simile as if he intended to complete the sentence with some such word as “resistit:” but apparently forgetting this, he constructs ‘ille’ with ‘sternit.’
[699, 701] The constr. ‘Latagum . . . . occupat os’ is Homeric. Il. 5. 79, τὸν μὲν ἄρ᾽ Εὐρύπυλος . . . . ἔλασ᾽ ὦμον, 7. 14—16 Ἰφίνοον βάλε δουρὶ . . . . . . Ὦμον &c.: so Virg. A. 12. 275, “Egregium forma iuvenem . . . Transadigit costas.” ‘Occupat’ meets him full in the face before he could strike: comp. 12. 299, “venienti Ebuso plagamque ferenti Occupat os flammis.” ‘Adversum’ Gud. originally. “Succiso poplite” 9. 762. κατ᾽ ἰγνύην βεβλημένος Il. 13. 212. ‘Segnem’ might mean cowardly, referring to ‘fugacem’ v. 697 (see on v. 592 above), but it seems better to take it in the sense of ‘disabled,’ ‘without power of fighting,’ which suits ‘sinit’ better. Perhaps it may not be fanciful to say that both senses are included: disabled in deed as he was already disabled in will. “Terraeque petitus segnis” Lucr. 3.173. “Donat habere” 5. 262: for the constr. see on 1. 319.
 Hom. has a Theano, daughter of Cisseus, and wife of Antenor. Il. 6. 297, Θεανὼ καλλιπάρῃος, Κισσηίς, ἄλοχος Ἀντήνορος ἱπποδάμοιο: comp. Il. 11. 223 foll., a passage of which the name “Cisseis” may have reminded Virg. Ἕκτορι δ᾽ ἦεν ἑταῖρος, ἰῇ δ᾽ ἐν νυκτὶ γένοντο (of Poly. damas) Il. 18. 251.
 Creat is virtually the reading of all known MSS., Med. a m. p. having ‘crepat,’ and one or two others some similar corruption. The subject of ‘occubat’ is obviously Paris, but the omission of the nom. is unaccountable, and could only be justified in a poem confessedly left uncorrected. Serv. notices it, attributing it to metrical necessity. Various attempts to supply the defect have been made: some earlier critics suggested “occubat hic: carum,” which, with the change of ‘carum’ into ‘Clarium,’ Wagn. rather approves, while Cunningham would read ‘hic cubat.’ But the most plausible emendation is Bentley's (on Hor. Epod. 5. 28), “Cisseis regina Parim: Paris urbe paterna Occubat,” which has been approved almost unanimously by critics, and adopted by Heyne and all subsequent editors but Gossrau. There can be little doubt that the change of ‘creat’ into ‘Paris’ would be an infinite improvement, and it seems strange that Virg. should not have so written: but that is hardly a reason for introducing such an alteration in the face of all external authority. Whatever may be the case with other authors, it is not likely that in the text of Virg. ‘Paris’ should have dropped out and have been replaced by ‘creat.’ ‘Creat’ itself is critically probable, the pres. being used in the case of that and similar verbs when we should expect the past: see on v. 518 above, E. 8. 45 note, G. 1. 279. The assertion made by Pottier, that six Paris MSS. read ‘Paris,’ received with suspicion by most critics, has been ascertained to be untrue by Mr. Duckworth, of Trinity College, Oxford. Bentley also turned ‘genitori’ v. 704 into ‘genitore,’ in which he has not been followed.
 Ignarum a stranger to the land of his burial (see on E. 6. 40, “rara per ignaros errant animalia montis”). The word, however, is sometimes used passively: “regio hostibus ignara” Sallust Jug. 52 (and see the dictt.), and so Gellius 9. 12. 22 would take it here.
 Ille as 11. 809 foll. (where see note), 12. 5. So far as the following lines are modelled on Hom., Virg. seems to have had in his mind three passages: Il. 11. 414 foll., 13. 471 foll., and 17. 61 foll. But he has localized the description by the mention of places well known to his readers, a habit not uncommon with him: comp. 12. 5 foll. with Il. 20. 164 foll.
 Vesulus (Monte Viso) is the mountain from which the Po takes its rise: see Pliny 3. 20 (16) and Dict. G. ‘De montibus altis actus’ of course only applies to the boar of Vesulus, as ‘silva pastus arundinea’ vv. 709, 710 only applies to the boar of the marsh. ‘Pinifer’ is apparently not older than Virg. (Forc.)
 Multosve Pal., ‘Multoque’ Med., ‘Multosque’ Rom., Gud., and two other of Ribbeck's cursives. Heyne (followed by Ribbeck) reads ‘multosve’ against the balance of authority and without sufficient reason, as he reads ‘radiisve’ for ‘radiisque’ 6. 616 (note), where, as here, ‘que’ has a disjunctive force. The Laurentian boar cannot of course be the same as the Vesulan. Comp. for this way of writing the simile of the hunted stag, 12. 752, “ille autem insidiis et ripa territus alta:” where he has just before said “inclusum—flumine —aut—saeptum formidine.” The Laurentian marsh was between Ardea and the mouth of the Tiber: on its boars see Bentley on Hor. Epod. 5. 28. Hor. 2 S. 4. 42 distinguishes the Laurentian from the Umbrian boar: “Nam Laurens malus est, ulvis et arundine pinguis” (Heyne). ‘Defendit’ as in Hor. 2 S. 2. 17, “atrum Defendens piscis hiemat mare.” ‘Silva arundinea’ like “lupini silvam” G. 1. 75.
 Bentley l. c. wished to read ‘pascit’ or ‘pavit’ for ‘pastus:’ and Cunningham conj. ‘Pastum in arundinea.’ There is considerable awkwardness in the text as it stands, as though the clause ‘silva pastus arundinea’ is grammatically correlative to ‘de montibus actus,’ they do not really correspond, neither the time nor the action spoken of being parallel; but this is not a fatal objection in a writer like Virg., who is apt to violate symmetry, either logical or grammatical, for variety's sake. See on 2. 86. Serv. calls it an antiptosis, but does not explain the nature of the difficulty.
 ‘Substitit,’ ‘infremuit,’ and ‘inhorruit’ perf., not aor.; representing the presents μένει and φρίσσει in Hom.'s lines (Il. 13. 472), of which this is a condensation: Ὅστε μένει κολοσυρτὸν ἐποιχόμενον πολὺν ἀνδρῶν Χώρῳ ἐν οἰοπόλῳ, φρίσσει δέ τε νῶτον ὕπερθεν. ‘Infremo’ is apparently not ante-Virgilian.
 Il. 17. 65, ἀμφὶ δὲ τόνγε κύνες ἄνδρες τε νομῆες Πολλὰ μάλ᾽ ἰυζουσιν ἀπόπροθεν, οὐδ᾽ ἐθέλουσιν Ἀντίον ἐλθέμεναι. ‘Propiusque’ Pal., Gud.: ‘propiusve’ Med., Rom., and so Heyne and Wagn., who however, Q. V. 36. 7, prefers ‘propiusque,’ which is perhaps rightly adopted by Forb. and Ribbeck. Comp. 5. 379, “nec quisquam ex agmine tanto Audet adire virum manibusque inducere caestus.” Sil. 9. 612 has an imitation of Virg., “Nec cuiquam virtus propiora capessere bella: Longinquis andent iaculis et arundinis ictu.”
 Totis Pal., and so originally Gud.
[717, 718] Cunctatur = “cunctanter se vertit dubius quo impetum faciat” (Heyne). Stat. Theb. 2. 588 curiously imitates this passage: “partis pariter divisus in omnis Hos obit atque illos.” ‘Cunctatus’ Gud. originally. Cunningham, Heyne, and most of the modern editors place these lines after v. 714, following a suggestion of Scaliger and other early critics. Externally the change has little or no authority: all that can be alleged for it being that one inferior MS. puts v. 714 after v. 718, while two others (one of them MS. Canon.) reverse vv. 717, 718, which may afford a slight presumption that in some early copy or copies directions were given for changing the order. On internal grounds it is very plausible, as the action described belongs rather to the boar than to Mezentius. So of the word ‘tergo;’ the gnashing of the teeth however, though more appropriate to the animal (comp. Il. 11. 417), might be attributed as well to Mezentius by Virg. as by Hom. to Achilles (Il. 19. 365): comp. Virg.'s description of Polyphemus 3. 664, and of Hercules 8. 230. An imitation in Lucan 6. 206 (comp. by Taubmann), “Omne repercussum squalenti missile tergo Frangit, et haerentis mota cute discutit hastas,” of an elephant in battle, looks as if he understood Virg.'s words of a beast rather than a man. Yet on the other hand it may be urged that the balance of the comParison is somewhat better kept by the order in the text, the two lines under consideration answering more or less exactly to “infremuitque ferox et inhorruit armos,” and that Virg. may even have wished to clench the parallel by describing Mezentius so as to suggest the animal with which he compares him. In that case it will be perhaps better to understand ‘tergo’ in its ordinary sense, Mezentius being supposed to shake off the darts raining on him from behind, instead of giving it the meaning of ‘shield,’ which might be supported to some extent from v. 482 (note), 784, and a passage from Sallust quoted by Serv. on 11. 619, “more equestris proelii sumptis tergis ac redditis.” The description is not unlike that of Aeneas below vv. 802 foll. Comp. also 9. 704, where it is said that Bitias would not have resigned his life to an ordinary javelin.