[336] Drances, as Heyne remarks, is a more respectable Thersites. Perhaps we may say that he is a compound of Thersites and Polydamas, with the latter of whom Ursinus parallels him. (See Introduction to this book.) Some thought that Virg. had Cicero in his mind, Turnus being Antony; which may be so far true that Drances, like Cicero and Demosthenes both, is better at speaking than at fighting. We are rather reminded of the part played by Hanno against Hannibal in Livy 21 and 23. Macrob. Sat. 5. 2 thinks that Virg. imitated the altercation between Agamemnon and Achilles, which is less likely. “‘Idem’ videlicet qui supra apud Aeneam egerat,” Serv. rightly. Wagn.'s attempt to understand it “et infensus et largus opum” is very unnatural. Peerlkamp rather ingeniously conj. ‘pridem.’ Comp. generally v. 122 above.
[337] Obliquus is a common epithet for invidious or slanderous language (see Forc.), the notion apparently being that of indirect or side attack, which is virtually the same as that of the askant look of the evil eye. Flor. 4. 2 has “adversus potentis semper obliquus.” ‘Invidia’ and ‘stimulis’ form a sort of ἓν διὰ δυοῖν. ‘Amarus,’ like “acerbus,” transferred from pungency of taste to pungency of other sorts.
[338] “‘Largus opum’ abundans opibus, dives; non qui multa donaret,” Serv. No authority however is quoted for the use of ‘largus’ with gen. in this sense: and it seems more likely that Drances is represented as gaining political influence by a lavish use of his wealth, like Lucan's description of Pompey (1. 131), “famaeque petitor Multa dare in volgus,” which follows immediately on “longoque togae tranquillior usu Dedidicit iam pace ducem.” ‘Lingua melior’ like “Missilibus melior sagittis” Hor. 3 Od. 6. 16, where however ‘melior’ seems to indicate superiority to another party named, not, as here and in 5. 68, general superiority. Ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν ἂρ μύθοισιν, ὁ δ᾽ ἔγχεϊ πολλὸν ἐνίκα, Il. 18. 252 (of Polydamas and Hector respectively). Serv. from an obscure and perhaps interpolated comment seems to have read ‘linguae,’ which is supported by the original reading of Pal. Cunningham quotes “fati melior” from Sil. 5. 333. ‘Frigida bello dextera’ like “invictaque bello dextera” 6. 878, though here ‘bello’ may be dat. i. q. “in bellum.” Virg. has chosen for the sake of variety to speak of the hand as the part affected by the chill of the blood. ‘Dextera’ is doubtless in apposition to Drances himself, like “iuvenes, fortissima frustra Pectora” 2. 348, though it might conceivably be a change of construction: in which latter view we might comp. 5. 153, “melior remis, sed pondere pinus Tarda tenet:” ib. 754, “Exigui numero, sed bello vivida virtus.”
[339] “Futile vas quoddam est lato ore, fundo angusto, quo utebantur in sacris Vestae, quia aqua ad sacra Vestae hausta in terra non ponitur: quod si fiat, piaculum est. Unde excogitatum est vas quod stare non posset, sed positum statim effunderetur. Unde et homo commissa non retinens futilis dicitur: contra non futilis, bonus in consiliis, non inanis,” Serv. The comparative rarity of the word has apparently given rise to a variety of errors even in Ribbeck's MSS. One of Ribbeck's MSS. had originally “habitis,” which had occurred to myself as a plausible though inadmissible conjecture.
[340] Seditione seems here to refer to faction rather than to sedition strictly speaking. “Factione,” we may remember, would not have suited Virg.'s verse. Serv.'s “praepotens in movenda seditione” seems nearer the truth than Forb.'s “potentiam sibi quaerens seditionibus.”
[341] Ferebant Pal. and one of Ribbeck's cursives originally, Rom., ‘ferebat’ Pal. corrected, Med. If the latter is correct, we must suppose that Virg., in his love for artificial expressions, has made Drances' “materna nobilitas” render him not only noble on the one side, but ignoble on the other; but it is likely enough, as Wagn. admits, that the transcribers may have altered the word to make it accord with ‘dabat.’ ‘Incertum’ i. q. “ignobilem,” as we should say, no one knew who his father was. ‘De patre,’ on the father's side. Iulius Sabinus has a note, “filius sororis Latini patre rustico:” but Drances' age (v. 122) is against this.
[342] “Incenditque animum dictis atque aggerat iras” 4. 197. Here ‘iras’ are those felt by the assembly against Turnus, and the object of ‘onerat’ is ‘iras,’ not (as Forb.) “Turnum.” For ‘onerat’ in the sense of aggravation comp. Tac. H. 2. 52, “onerabat paventium curas ordo Mutinensis arma et pecuniam afferendo.”
[343] “Rem delatam consulere” Livy 2. 28, cited by Forc.
[344] Serv. oddly remarks, “Bene addidit ‘bone,’ et auxit epitheto dignitatem. ‘Rex’ enim medium est: nam et bonus esse et pessimus potest.”
[345] For ‘ferat’ Med. originally, Gud. corrected, and two other of Ribbeck's cursives have ‘petat,’ which Burm. rightly regards as an interpretation. The use of ‘ferre’ is illustrated by Forc. s. v., who quotes among other passages Cic. Fam. 1. 7, “In hac ratione quid res, quid causa, quid tempus ferat tu perspicies.” But it is not easy to see from what sense of ‘ferre’ this particular meaning is derived. In these two passages the notion of allowing is perhaps the most natural: in others, where the verb has no object expressed, the notion may be rather that of tendency (as in 2. 34 note), “Troiae sic fata ferebant” (which we might render ‘the fate of Troy was setting that way:’ comp. “ferens ventus”): in some cases again the expression seems to border on the use of ‘ferre’ as i. q. “offerre se,” which we have in 2. 94, “fors si qua tulisset.” In a living language shades of meaning are apt to run into each other, and senses of the same word which were originally distinct become confounded by the mere fact of their association with the same sound, so that dictionaries are often at fault. No other instance is quoted of ‘musso’ with inf.; but Virg., from whom a large proportion of the instances of the word appears to come, uses it twice with an object clause, 12. 657, 718, the sense of inarticulate murmuring passing into that of hesitation. So Enn. A. 347, “Exspectans si mussaret quae denique pausa Pugnandi fieret.”
[346] Flatus remittat of Turnus' abating his own violence or pride, not, as Serv. suggests as an alternative, of his allowing the rest to breathe. Gossrau comp. Cic. pro Flacc. 22, “remittant spiritus, conprimant animos suos, sedent arrogantiam.” So Eur. Phoen. 454, σχάσον δὲ δεινὸν ὄμμα καὶ θυμοῦ πνοάς. Comp. Soph. Ant. 929, ἔτι τῶν αὐτῶν ἀνέμων αὑταὶ Ψυχῆς ῥιπαὶ τήνδε γ᾽ ἔχουσιν.
[347] Auspicium as general. Drances intimates that the gods are unfavourable to Turnus, who consequently brings the army to destruction. A battle is said to be fought “auspiciis” or “auspicio” of the general, not only when he is present, but even in his absence: see Forc. ‘Mores sinistros’ of Turnus' obstinacy and violence, as shown at the breaking out of the war, 7. 577 foll.
[348] Arma mortemque ἓν διὰ δυοῖν.
[349] Comp. Cic. 3 Cat. 10, “Clarissimis viris interfectis lumina civitatis exstincta sunt.” ‘Ducum’ is of course a descriptive gen. ‘Cadere’ is perhaps chosen as applying to the setting of stars as well as to the death of men.
[350] “‘Considere luctu’ dictum erit ut collabi, concidere, iacere, calamitate, dolore,” Heyne, who comp. “considere in ignis” 2. 624., 9. 145, and the use of συνιζάνειν. “Mire ‘temptat’ non pugnat,” Serv.
[351] For ‘fugae’ Rom. has ‘fuga.’ Serv. and the commentators generally refer this to the event mentioned 10. 659 foll., called ‘fuga’ ib. 624. Perhaps it may rather point to Turnus' retreat 9. 815, which was actually from an attack on the camp. ‘Caelum territat armis’ like “ventos lacessit ictibus” 12. 105: see on 5. 377. Serv. thinks the expression unsuited to the gravity of Virg., and only excused by being put into the mouth of Drances: it is however a natural piece of rhetorical invective.
[352] Unum etiam, one more. “Paullatim vello et demo unum, demo etiam unum” Hor. 2 Ep. 1. 46: comp. Pers. 6. 58. ‘Donis quae plurima’ i. q. “donis plurimis quae.”
[353] The reading before Heins., ‘duci,’ found in Gud. corrected, would be a mere repetition of ‘mitti.’ Serv. says rightly “‘Mitti’ aurum, ebur, sellam, &c., ‘dici’ de navibus et agro,” though it may be questioned whether he did not suppose ‘dici’ to mean to be spoken about, whereas it signifies to be fixed or promised, as in 5. 486, “praemia dicit.”
[354] Violentia: see Introduction to this book.
[355] Quin—des, to prevent your giving: as if “inpediat” had preceded.
[356] Pater is better joined with ‘des’ than taken as a vocative. For ‘iungas’ Med. (second reading) and Rom. have ‘firmes.’ Either would stand, as though ‘firmes’ might seem more appropriate to an additional guarantee for peace, we may get the same sense with ‘iungas’ by throwing a stress on ‘aeterno foedere,’ ‘let this peace which you cement have a lasting sanction.’ Comp. 12. 821, “Cum iam connubiis pacem felicibus (esto) Conponent.” The other probabilities on each side nearly balance each other: ‘firmes’ may have come from v. 330, ‘iungas’ from such passages as 4. 112., 8. 56., 12. 822. ‘Hanc’ is explained by Wagn. “hac condicione futuram:” it seems rather to mean ‘this which you have proposed and all of us have in our minds.’
[358] For ‘oremus’ Canon. and another MS. have ‘rogemus.’
[359] In Serv.'s time there was a doubt about the construction, some taking ‘cedat’ with ‘ius proprium,’ others referring it back to ‘veniam:’ but it clearly stands alone in its ordinary sense. ‘Regi patriaeque:’ Latinus had a right to dispose of his daughter's hand, while the country might claim a voice in the marriage-choice of the heir to the crown. Drances treats Turnus not as a stranger (which would have admitted his eligibility as a bridegroom), but as one of the citizens. One inferior MS. has ‘patrique,’ which Heyne and Brunck wished to read, inserting another ‘que’ after ‘regi.’
[361] ‘Proiicere’ of abandoning 6. 436 (comp. “proiectus”), here perhaps with the additional notion of throwing before one's self. Comp. the uses of παραβάλλειν (παραβάλλεσθαι) and προβάλλειν in Greek. ‘Caput,’ as we should say fountain head, 12. 572. ‘Latio’ with ‘caput et caussa,’ the sentence being really equivalent to “O qui Latio es caput” &c.
[362] Bello prob. abl. ‘in war:’ but it may be dat.
[363] Pacis solum inviolabile pignus is explained by vv. 355, 356.
[364] “Hoc dicit, non sum quidem inimicus, sed si velis esse, non recuso,” Serv. ‘Invisus’ here has doubtless the force of “inimicus,” but we need not seek with Forb. for instances of the use of the word in an active sense, as the account of it is simply that from meaning ‘hated’ it comes to mean an enemy, and an enemy may be either active or passive. With the object clause after ‘nil moror’ comp. Attius Myrm. fr. 1, “Nam pervicacem dici me esse et vincere (vincier?) Perfacile patior, pertinacem, nil moror,” though there ‘nil moror’ means ‘I do not like,’ not, as here, ‘I do not object’ (comp. the two senses in which we use ‘I do not care’).
[365] “Supplex venio” 8. 382. “Miserere tuorum” 12. 653, also addressed to Turnus.
[366] Pone animos i. q. “pone superbiam.” For the possible shades of meaning in this use of ‘ponere’ see on 1. 302, “ponuntque ferocia Poeni corda.” ‘Pulsus abi:’ Drances recommends Turnus to accept his position as a beaten man: comp. Turnus' reply, v. 392 below. “Alter victus abit” G. 3. 225. ‘Abire’ is used of both parties retiring from the conflict (comp. 10. 859): but of course it is the vanquished who is more naturally said to quit the field. ‘Sat’ is said by Wagn. to have the force of an adjective (‘sat funera’ i. q. “funera quae satis essent”). It appears better however to regard it as an adverb, ‘we have seen deaths to a sufficient extent,’ which of course is equivalent to ‘we have seen enough of deaths.’ The construction is the same in 2. 642, “Satis una superque Vidimus exscidia et captae superavimus urbi,” though there, as remarked, the real force of the sentence is different. Munro on Lucr. 1.241 (“Tactus enim leti satis esset caussa profecto”) is quite right in defending other passages of the same kind (most of them given in Forc., who however is rather confused in his collection) from the alterations of Madvig and others, as all may be explained on the same principle. “In all these passages,” he says (3rd ed.), “‘satis’ appears to me to have much the same force as in Lucr., ‘in sufficient measure.’” ‘Fusi,’ as routed men, as of course they might have seen heaps of slain as victors. Pal. and originally Gud. have ‘funere fuso’ (‘funere’ in Pal. corrected from ‘funera’), Med. ‘funera fusis,’ variations of which it does not seem easy to give an account.
[367] Desolavimus, by depriving them of cultivators and inhabitants. Serv. comp. “Latos vastant cultoribus agros” 8. 8. Pal. and originally Gud. have ‘designavimus,’ apparently in the sense of “agros et Hesperiam metire iacens” 12. 360, the whole community being identified with the slain. The variant is a strange one, taken in connexion with that of the preceding line, and may perhaps point to something which has yet to be explained. Ribbeck supposes there may have been a reading “Sat funera fusos Vidimus ingentis et designavimus agros,” i. e. “satis multos ut funera stratos vidimus eorumque corporibus agros velut tropaeis distinximus et ornavimus,” comp. v. 386.
[368] “Si te nulla movet tantarum gloria rerum” 4. 272.
[369] “Dotalis regia” 9. 737. ‘Cordi’ 7. 326., 10. 252. For ‘et’ Med. has ‘aut.’
[370] “Aude” Pers. 6. 49. It is very difficult to decide whether ‘adversum’ is to be taken with ‘pectus’ or with ‘hostem.’ The former is supported more or less by v. 742 below, 9. 347., 10. 571, the latter by v. 389 below, 12. 266, 456. In any case ‘fidens’ will be nom.
[371] “Scilicet exspectem libeat dum proelia Turno Nostra pati?” 12. 570, a comParison of which passage seems to show that the present sentence had better be pointed as an indignant question. “Regia coniunx” 2. 783, meaning apparently a wife who is heir to a crown, not simply one of royal descent.
[372] “Inops inhumataque turba” 6. 325. Gossrau remarks, after Serv., that though as a matter of fact the slain had been buried, they owed it not to the success of Turnus, but to the clemency of Aeneas. Med. originally had traces of a reading ‘infleta inhumataque turba.’ Comp. Soph. Ant. 29, ἄκλαυτον, ἄταφον.
[373] ‘Sternemur’ Gud. originally and another of Ribbeck's cursives, found also in the Medicean of Pierius and supported by Donatus. For the subj. see on v. 371. Heins. changed ‘etiam’ into ‘et iam,’ which Heyne retained and Wagn. formerly edited: but the instances to which Wagn. refers in his Q. V. are not very germane, and Serv. read ‘etiam,’ which he explains as “adverbium hortantis,” and quotes from Ter. And. 5. 2. 8 “etiam responde.” Here however ‘etiam’ goes with ‘tu,’ which is strongly opposed to ‘nos.’
[374] With ‘Martis’ comp. v. 389 note‘Aspice contra’ like the Hebrew expression ‘to look each other in the face.’
[375] Vocat v. 442. One MS. fills up the line “audacem solum te in proelia dura.”
[376-444] ‘Turnus replies furiously to Drances, whose cowardice he contrasts with his own valour; then, turning to Latinus, he pleads that a reverse in a single battle may well be retrieved, and that they have many allies yet who may do much for them, adding that he is quite ready to encounter Aeneas in single combat.’
