Repeated from 4. 129. Here the MSS. seem all to agree in the past tense. Virg., as Heyne remarks, leaves us to infer that the Rutulians fled after Mezentius' death, and that night closed the combat. ‘Interea’ then will refer not to the end of Book 10, but to the time subsequent to it, which Virg. has omitted to mention. See on 10. 1.
 It is not easy to say whether ‘dare’ is constructed with ‘curae’ or with ‘praecipitant.’ Probably Virg. trusted that a recollection of the ordinary construction of ‘cura’ with an inf., as in G. 1. 52, would soften any harshness that might be felt in connecting ‘dare’ with ‘praecipitant.’ ‘Praecipitant’ is apparently intransitive, ‘dare’ being in effect a kind of cogn. acc. If the text of Virg. had been as much vexed by conjectures as that of other authors, ‘praecipiunt’ would doubtless have been suggested. But ‘praecipitant’ is confirmed by an imitation in Stat. Theb. 1. 679, “Sed si praecipitant miserum cognoscere curae,” and gives a more forcible sense. Some have fancied that in Plaut. Trin. 2. 2. 17 “praecipito” is used as a frequentative of “praecipio,” and Val. F. 2. 390, “Tunc Argum Tiphynque vocat, pelagoque parari Praecipitat,” seems almost to have been influenced by a similar notion. For ‘et—que’ see Madv. § 435 a. obs. 1, where it is said to be only found as a loose way of connecting propositions. Some MSS. omit ‘et,’ and Ribbeck strangely conjectures ‘ei’ or ‘hei,’ Rom. having ‘et’ for ‘hei’ below v. 57. With ‘dare tempus’ comp. Ov. 2 Pont. 9. 50, “Mitibus aut studiis tempora plura dedit.”
 Funere is probably the death of Pallas, as the commentators take it from Serv. downwards, though it must be confessed that there is nothing in the context here or in the conclusion of the preceding book to suggest it. The only alternative would be to extend the word to the whole work of death in which Aeneas had been engaged on the preceding day, his first day of fighting; but to represent this as having confused and disturbed the conqueror's mind would have been more in keeping with modern than with heroic or even Virgilian feeling.
 This is a locus classicus about the construction of a trophy. Stat. Theb. 2. 704 foll. has imitated it. The trunk of a tree is apparently intended to represent the body of the conquered foe: comp. below vv. 16, 173. An oak is chosen, as in Stat. l. c.; oaks being used for hanging spoils upon when there is no question of a trophy, 10. 423, Lucan 1. 136 foll. Lersch § 49 fancies it is selected as sacred to Jove, the “spolia opima” being given to Iuppiter Feretrius: but the offering is here to Mars, as he himself admits, and there is no reason to suppose any direct reference to “spolia opima,” which could not be won from Mezentius, as he was not the real leader of the enemy (see however on 10. 449). With ‘decisis undique ramis’ comp. “caesis lacer undique membris Truncus” Lucr. 3.403.
 Serv. says trophies were always erected on eminences, quoting Sall. Hist. 4. 29 (Dietsch), “Pompeius devictis (‘de victis,’ Dietsch) Hispanis tropaea in Pyrenaeis iugis constituit;” a statement which proves nothing. Stat. however speaks of an old oak standing on a mound in the middle of the field.
 In Stat. l. c. the trophy is to Minerva, who is also called “bellipotens.” Here of course Mars is meant. The epithet is found in Enn. A. 6, fr. 8, where it is applied to the Aeacidae. ‘Rorantis sanguine’ 8. 645., 12. 512. Rom. has ‘roranti.’
 Tela are probably the spears flung by Mezentius at Aeneas (10. 882 foll.) and broken on the shield. Stat. l. c. talks of “truncos ictibus ensis.” ‘Bis sex:’ Serv. has an extraordinary fancy that these wounds were given to Mezentius by the representatives of the twelve “populi” of Mantua (10. 202), asserting that it was customary for all the army to stab a slain enemy, and referring to the stabbing of the dead Hector by the Greeks. The real reference of course is to the wounds received by Mezentius during the battle, as hinted at in such passages as 10. 691 foll. ‘Petitum,’ aimed at or struck, like “Malo me Galatea petit” E. 3. 64.
 Collo: the sword-belt is passed over the shoulder: see on 8. 459. We have had a sword with an ivory sheath, 9. 305; but here the hilt seems to be meant.
 Tegebat seems to mean little more than “cingebat,” as we can hardly suppose that there was any fear of attack from the enemy. Comp. Stat. 5 Silv. 1. 25, “omnis pariter matertera vatem, Omnis Apollineus tegeret Bacchique sacerdos.” Not unlike is the phrase “tegere latus.”
 The language is like that of the inscription in 3. 288, “Aeneas haec de Danais victoribus arma.” ‘De rege superbo’ is of course from Mezentius, not, as Serv. thought, from Turnus. The meaning is not, these are the first-fruits from the king, as if there were more to come, but these first-fruits of the war are from the king. Macrob. S. 3. 5 says that Virg. alludes to the story (told by Cato in Book 1 of his “Origines”) that Mezentius compelled his subjects to offer to him the first-fruits due to the gods.
Mezentius is identified with the
trophy, as was remarked above on vv. 5,
10. Virg. may have thought of Aesch.
Ag. 1404 foll.
“οὗτός ἐστιν Ἀγαμέμνων, ἐμὸς
πόσις, νεκρὸς δὲ τῆσδε δεξιᾶς χερός,
ἔργον δικαίας τέκτονος. τάδ᾽ ὧδ᾽ ἔχει.
 Burm., following a suggestion of Serv., connected ‘animis’ with what follows: and so Heyne. But ‘arma parate animis’ seems to be i. q. “arma parate animose,” like “ibo animis contra” v. 438 below: unless we prefer to take it as = ‘be ready armed in spirit,’ like “animos aptent armis” 10. 259 note. “Stamus animis, et . . . speramus etiam manu” Cic. Att. 5. 18. “Spe iam praecipit hostem” v. 491 below.
 Ignaros, taken by surprise “Vellere signa” G. 4. 108. The plucking up of the standard was an important matter with the Romans, being performed after taking the auguries: and if the standard was not removed easily, the prospects of the expedition were supposed to be unfavourable. Heins. read ‘avellere,’ which seems to have no authority beyond the first Aldine edition.
 Segnis sententia, cowardly purpose, much as φρονεῖν is used in Greek, including feeling as well as deliberate resolve. “Talibus incensa est iuvenum sententia dictis” 12. 238. It matters little whether ‘metu’ be connected with ‘segnis’ or with ‘tardet.’ For ‘ve’ Med. corrected, Pal., Gud., and two other of Ribbeck's cursives, with Canon., read ‘que,’ which may be right. Gud. and Canon. also read ‘segnes,’ and so many editions: but the nom. is better. Another reading (found in none of Ribbeck's MSS.) is ‘segni.’
 “Vitiose in media oratione ‘ait’ positum critici notant,” Serv. Heyne thinks these critics must have been “satis indocti:” Peerlkamp however wishes to read “Ite agite.” Jahn comp. 3. 480, where ‘ait’ is similarly introduced towards the end of a speech. Here he supposes it to denote that Aeneas makes a pause and resumes his address. Perhaps we had better say that after giving general injunctions in the earlier part of his speech, he here issues a special order, turning, as Burm. suggests, to particular persons. For ‘quae’ the MSS. of Macrob. S. 4. 4, where the words are quoted, read ‘qui,’ which some critics wish to restore: but Wagn. rightly remarks that the change is accounted for by the fact that the quotation does not include ‘egregias animas.’
 “Qui sibi letum Insontes peperere manu” 6. 434. ‘Patriam’ seems to be used proleptically—‘who have won us this to be our country.’ ‘Sanguine peperere’ like “quaesitas sanguine dotes” 7. 423. “Decoret sepulchro” 9. 215 note. ‘Supremis muneribus’ like “supremum honorem” vv. 61, 76 below: comp. 6. 213.
 Repeated from 6. 429 (note).
[29-58] ‘Aeneas joins the mourners over Pallas, and addresses the dead, reproaching himself and his fortune, and compassionating Evander.’