‘Deflere’ is the technical term for lamentation of the dead, 6. 220. “Cinefactum te prope busto Insatiabiliter deflevimus” Lucr. 3.907, “defletum in foro, laudatum pro rostris” Tac. A. 3. 5, where perhaps the two participles are to be understood impersonally, in which case they would illustrate ‘haec deflevit’ here. Comp. also such expressions as “his lacrimis” 2. 145 note. Serv.'s gloss is “postquam haec cum lacrimis dixit.” Burm., referring to Cannegieter on Avianus fab. 1, explains “flendo finem fecit,” which may be so far true that the compound may mean ‘lamenting one's fill.’ See on 4. 52. Rom. has “dicta” before ‘deflevit,’ apparently intending, as Ribbeck suggests, “dicta dedit.” “Corpora tollunt” v. 206 below. “Corpus miserabile” E. 5. 22.
 Pal. and Rom. have ‘ordine,’ apparently from a recollection of 7. 152. Serv.'s explanation, “Troianos, Tuscos, Arcadas,” might seem to point to ‘ordine:’ but “toto ordine” could scarcely have the meaning of “omni ordine.”
 ‘Solatia’ is in apposition to the whole sentence, and is probably a nom., though it might be an acc.: see on 6. 223.
 Toros i. q. ‘feretrum;’ see on 6. 220. ‘Exstructos:’ Stat. l. c. speaks of four layers, straw, flowers, aromatic herbs, and embroidered robes. Virg. probably means something rather less elaborate. The ‘obtentus frondis’ seems to be one of the layers.
 Agresti stramine: in Stat. l. c. straw forms the lowest layer, “ima virent agresti stramina cultu.” ‘Stramen’ however is doubtless a more or less general term, and may be the same as the ‘obtentus frondis.’ Ribbeck reads ‘sublimen’ from Gud. and another of his cursives. ‘In stramine’ was read before Heins.
 Doubtless, as Cerda thinks, from the well-known line of Catull. 60 (62). 43, “Idem (flos) cum tenui carptus defloruit ungui:” comp. also Prop. 1. 20. 39, “Quae modo decerpens tenero pueriliter ungui Proposito florem praetulit officio.” We have had a similar comParison 9. 435 foll.
 Languentis is not proleptic, but expresses the natural drooping of the hyacinth. “Violae de flore” occurs in the Virgilian (?) Copa 13. The flower is apparently distinguished from the bud, so that it is really the same expression as “flos piri” &c.
 It is a question whether ‘recessit’ belongs to both clauses; and many have thought that there was great beauty in the distinction between the richness of colour, which is gone, and the shape or grace which still remains. But it is more in Virg.'s style to repeat the same thought in two different forms; and if we suppose the two parts of this line to contain a contrast, the following line will lose much of its force. Heyne then is right in giving as a summary of the present line “qui nondum marcidus elanguit,” while he represents v. 71 by “nec tamen pristino vigore nitet.”
 Tunc was the reading before Heins., and also of Heyne: but all Ribbeck's MSS. give ‘tum.’ ‘Ostroque auroque’ is read by some inferior copies. The meaning is that the robes are of purple, stiffened with gold embroidery. Comp. 1. 648 note.
 Extulit, from the tent, 5. 424 note. ‘Laeta laborum’ like “laetissimus umbrae” 1. 441, where it has been suggested that the present words may mean ‘prodigal of her labour.’ ‘Delighting in the task’ however is the more natural meaning: and the gen. in this sense may be compared with the passages from Sil. and Val. Fl. cited by Forc. ‘Laetus,’ and with v. 280 below.
 Repeated from 4. 264 (note).
 Serv. and the commentators generally understand Virg. to mean that one of the two robes is used to wrap the body, the other is a hood for the head. They may be right; but the language in this case is highly artificial; and a simpler explanation would be that he chooses one of two robes, and in it wraps the body so as to cover the head. In Il. 24. 580 two φάρεα are reserved to wrap the body of Hector.
 These ‘praemia’ seem to be spoils won generally in the battle of the preceding day, distinguished from those won specially by Pallas, which are mentioned v. 80.
 The horses were to be sacrificed, as Cerda remarks, comp. Il. 23. 171, 242. ‘Spoliaverat’ Pallas, not, as Serv. suggests as an alternative, Aeneas. Ribbeck thinks the line a first draught of what is more fully expressed in the preceding lines and in vv. 83, 84.
 Inferias 10. 519. “‘Caeso sanguine’ pro caesorum, ut supra (10. 520) ‘Captivoque rogi perfundat sanguine flammas,’” Serv. Comp. Soph. fr. inc. 726 Nauck, αἷμα συγγενὲς κτείνας. ‘Sparsuros’ was the reading before Wagn.; but it is found in none of Ribbeck's uncials, and Aeneas might be said to sprinkle their blood, as he selected them for sacrifice, just as we have “perfundat” in 10. l. c. ‘Flammas’ Med., Pal., and three of Ribbeck's cursives, ‘flammam’ Rom., Gud. The former may have been introduced from 10. l. c., so it is perhaps best to retain the latter.
 The leaders who are sent with the body to Evander themselves carry trophies of those whom Pallas has slain. Serv., while mentioning this interpretation, himself prefers making ‘truncos’ the subject, ‘duces’ the object of ‘ferre,’ and understanding ‘duces’ as “ducum spolia.” ‘Truncos:’ see on v. 5 above.
 Inimica nomina for “inimicorum nomina,” like “captivo sanguine” 10. 520. The names were doubtless written on tablets and attached to the trophies. For ‘figi’ Rom. has ‘fingi,’ Med. originally a strange reading ‘figot,’ from which Peerlkamp would restore ‘figit.’
 The meaning evidently is that Acoetes, while being led along, keeps throwing himself on the ground, as Heyne rightly takes it. Wagn. puts a comma after ‘sternitur,’ making ‘proiectus’ a finite verb: but the line requires connecting with the preceding. The editor of Bodoni's text thinks it spurious, and Ribbeck supposes a lacuna; but it is doubtless as Virg. wrote it, though the expression is a little careless. ‘Terrae’ is probably for “in terram:” but Virg. may have wished his readers also to think of the old locative. See on 6. 84.
 Rutulo sanguine 7. 318. See vv. 82, 84 above. “Perfusi sanguine” G. 2. 510. It is not clear whether the ‘currus’ are Pallas' own or those which he captured. Perhaps the line is more forcible with the former interpretation, the extent of the slaughter being shown by the fact that Pallas' car reeked with it. Cerda comp. Il. 20. 498 foll., ὣς ὑπ᾽ Ἀχιλλῆος μεγαθύμου μώνυχες ἵπποι Στεῖβον ὁμοῦ νέκυάς τε καὶ ἀσπίδας: αἵματι δ᾽ ἄξων Νέρθεν ἅπας πεπάλακτο, which is decidedly in favour of this view. On the other hand, Pallas is not represented in Book 10 as fighting from a chariot, while in ib. 399 foll. he kills an enemy who fights from one. But such an oversight would be natural enough in Virg.
 ‘Bellator equus’ G. 2. 145. ‘Insignibus,’ the “phalerae,” which the horse is represented as having laid aside, as the Romans did their ornaments on occasions of mourning (“sine insignibus magistratus,” Tac. A. 3. 4). Cerda supposes the horse to have had his mane clipped, comp. Eur. Alc. 429, which is ingenious but quite improbable. Aethon is the name of one of Hector's horses, Il. 8. 185. One of the horses of the sun is so called, Ov. M. 2. 153. From Il. 2. 839 it seems as if the name was given from the colour. Whether the horse is to be slain or merely to mourn is, as Taubm. remarks, doubtful.
 We only hear of Turnus' having taken away the belt (10. 495 foll.); but we infer the rest, as Serv. observes.
 Omnes Med., Pal., Gud., and another of Ribbeck's cursives, ‘duces’ Rom. and two cursives, supported by Serv. The latter doubtless arose, as Wagn. says, from v. 171, where “Tyrrhenum exercitus omnis” really supports ‘omnes’ here. ‘Versis’ doubtless means inverted, not, as Serv. suggests by way of alternative, reversed, which would only apply to the shields. Cerda comp. Albinov. ad Liv. 141, “Quos primum vidi fasces in funere vidi, Et vidi versos indiciumque mali,” Tac. A. 3. 2 “praecedebant incomta signa versi fasces” of the funeral of Germanicus, Stat. Theb. 6. 213 foll. “Tum septem numero turmas (centenus ubique Urguet eques) versis ducunt insignibus ipsi Graiugenae reges.”
 Praecesserat is the reading of all Ribbeck's uncials, and of Canon., ‘processerat’ being found as a variant in Gud. But “per,” “prae,” and “pro” are constantly confused, and ‘processerat’ seems to be required here by the sense and form of expression. It is true that “comitari” and “praecedere” are used of the same persons in 8. 462, to which Jahn in his first edition appealed, but ‘praecedere’ could only mean to go before some one else, who could not in this case be inferred from the context, while ‘procedere’ agrees well with ‘ordo,’ and is used of a funeral procession by Ter. And. 1. 1. 101, as Pierius remarks. ‘Longe’ expresses space rather than distance, much as if it had been “ordine longo.”
 Addidit Med. first reading, Pal., ‘edidit’ Med. second reading, Rom. Wagn. rightly remarks that ‘addidit’ is frequently used of a speech following not another speech but an act, as in 2. 593; though from his approval of Donatus' explanation “post ingentis gemitus haec addidit” it is possible that he may take ‘gemitu’ as dat., which is not likely.
 “Varro in libris Logistoricis dicit, ideo mortuis salve et vale dici, non quod aut valere aut salvi esse possint, sed quod ab his recedimus eos numquam visuri,” Serv. See on 5. 80. In Il. 23. 19 Achilles says χαῖρέ μοι, ὦ Πάτροκλε, καὶ εἰν Ἀΐδαο δόμοισιν, which will illustrate ‘mihi’ here. ‘Salve’ and ‘vale’ are similarly joined, Stat. 3 Silv. 3. 208. Rom. has ‘Pallas.’
 Aeneas had walked some way with the procession: he now returns to the camp.
[100-138] ‘An embassy comes from Latium, begging for a truce to bury the dead. Aeneas addresses them soothingly, grants their request, and wishes the war to be ended by a combat with Turnus. Drances, one of their number, assures him of their gratitude and sympathy. Each party cuts down trees for funeral piles.’