Homer (Il. 22. 321) simply says Εἰσορόων χρόα καλόν, ὅπη εἴξειε μάλιστα. ‘Fortunam’ is explained by Heyne (following Serv.) as = “locum quem fortuna dabat:” a simpler way would be to take it in its ordinary sense, ‘sortitus fortunam oculis’ meaning ‘having hit upon success with his eyes,’ i. e. by looking about for it. ‘Fortuna’ of the success of a weapon 10. 422: “(da telo) Fortunam atque viam duri per pectus Halaesi.”
 Fremunt of the noise of the stones against the wall. ‘Tanto’ Pal. for ‘tanti.’ ‘Fulmen’ is “the stroke or bolt or fire of thunder” (Munro on Lucr. 6. 160 foll.), not merely the noise: ‘fulmine,’ in or with the bolt. Virg. may have been thinking of Lucr. 6.329, where the swiftness of the bolt is compared to missiles: “validis quae de tormentis missa feruntur.”
 Dissultant of the bursting sound: ‘rumpuntur’ would have been the more ordinary expression: comp. Soph. Teuc. 2 (fr. 517 Nauck), Βροντὴ δ᾽ ἐρ᾽ῥάγη δἰ ἀστραπῆς: and Il. 16. 78, Ἕκτορος (φωνὴ) . . . Τρωσὶ κελεύοντος περιάγνυται.
[924, 925] Oras, the lower border. ‘Recludit:’ 10. 601, “pectus mucrone recludit.” ‘Extremos orbis’ the edge of the circles, just under the rim, where the shield would be weakest: ἄντυγ᾽ ὕπο πρώτην, ᾗ λεπτότατος θέε χαλκός Il. 20. 275. ‘Septemplex,’ an ἅπαξ λεγόμενον in Virg., but used by Ovid (see Forc.). Wagn. is right in stopping full after ‘orbis.’
 ‘Duplicare,’ to bend double, 11. 645: apparently a poetical use of the word (Forc.).
 Humilis supplexque Med., with one of Ribbeck's cursives, and so Heyne and Wagn. Pal. and Rom. (followed by Ribbeck) omit ‘que,’ making ‘humilis’ acc. pl., which seems better. Gud. has a mark of omission after ‘supplex.’
[932-934] Il. 22. 338 foll. (Hector to Achilles), Λίσσομ᾽ ὑπὲρ ψυχῆς, καὶ γούνων, σῶν τε τοκήων, Μή με ἔα παρὰ νηυσὶ κύνας καταδάψαι Ἀχαιῶν: . . . . Σῶμα δὲ οἴκαδ᾽ ἐμὸν δόμεναι πάλιν, ὄφρα πυρός με Τρῶες καὶ Τρώων ἄλοχοι λελάχωσι θανόντα: comp. also μνῆσαι πατρὸς σεῖο, θεοῖς ἐπιείκελ᾽ Ἀχιλλεῦ &c., Il. 24. 486. Virg.'s words, fuit et tibi talis' &c., are from Il. 22. 420 (of Achilles) καὶ δέ νυ τῷδε πατὴρ τοιόσδε τέτυκται Πηλεύς. ‘Cura parentis’ may mean either ‘the grief of a parent,’ or ‘thought about a parent:’ the similar passage 7. 402, “Si qua piis animis manet infelicis Amatae Gratia, si iuris materni cura remordet,” seems to make for the latter. Med. punctuates after ‘Anchises,’ and so Serv., who says “hic distinguendum, ut duo dicat: ‘Et habuisti patrem et pater es.’”
 The passage from this line to the end is missing in Rom.
 “Omnis intentio ad Aeneae pertinet gloriam. Nam et ex eo quod hosti cogitat parcere pius ostenditur: et ex eo quod eum interemit pietatis gestat insigne. Nam Evandri intuitu (instinctu?) Pallantis ulciscitur mortem” Serv. For ‘magis’ Med. a m. p. has ‘meis.’
 Infelix, fatal, ill-omened: see 10. 495 foll., where the vengeance to come on Turnus through this belt is anticipated. As Heyne remarks, this passage is quite in accordance with the feeling expressed in the Greek tragedies, that what was given by, or taken from, an enemy, brought ill fortune with it. In Il. 22. 322 a chance is given to Achilles' weapon, because Patroclus' armour does not fit Hector. Hector, according to Sophocles, was dragged round the walls of Troy by the belt which Ajax had given him, while Ajax killed himself with the sword of Hector. For ‘humero alto’ Med. a m. p. has ‘humeros altos:’ Parrhas. ‘ultro:’ and the Naples MS. of Charisius 59 ‘alto ingens.’ ‘Ingens’ (probably from 10. 496, “inmania pondera baltei,” or perhaps “ingens adparuit” 10. 579) pleases Wagn.
 Cingula pl. = a sword-belt, as 1. 492. “Aurea bullis Cingula” 9. 359 note. The second clause ‘cingula bullis’ brings the details of the ‘balteus’ more into relief. Varro, L. L. 5. 116, derives ‘balteum’ from “bullatum:” “Balteum, quod cingulum a corio habebant bullatum, balteum dictum.”
 Atque humeris &c., a clause added to a relative sentence: see on 5. 403., G. 2. 208. ‘Atque’ (more than “et”) = and afterwards. There may be a double meaning in ‘inimicum:’ the hostility was making itself felt. ‘Insigne gerere’ 7. 658.
[945, 946] Saevi doloris, all the pain caused by Pallas' death: to Pallas himself, to Evander, and Aeneas. ‘Hausit oculis:’ 4. 661, “hauriat hunc oculis ignem:” comp. Livy 27. 51, “primus quisque oculis auribusque haurire tantum gaudium cupientes:” but the use of ‘haurio’ is here somewhat extended. ‘Exuviasque’ added to explain ‘monumenta:’ ‘the memorials and the spoils which preserved them.’ ‘Furiis accensus’ 7. 392.
 For ‘hinc’ Parrhas. has ‘hic,’ and so Arusianus, p. 235 L. ‘Hinc’ seems to mean ‘from this moment,’ ‘after this,’ to be taken closely with ‘spoliis indute meorum.’ ‘Indute’ emotional voc. for nom.: see 2. 283 note. With the language and feeling of the passage comp. Il. 22. 270, Οὔ τοι ἔτ᾽ ἔσθ᾽ ὑπάλυξις: ἄφαρ δέ σε Παλλὰς Ἀθήνη Ἔγχει ἐμῷ δαμάα:ι νῦν δ᾽ ἀθρόα πάντ᾽ ἀποτίσεις Κήδἐ ἐμῶν ἑτάρων, οὓς ἔκτανες ἔγχεϊ θύων.
 From 11. 831 (note): comp. 10. 819.
EXCURSUS TO BOOK XII.
ON THE LENGTHENING OF SHORT FINAL SYLLABLES IN Virgil.
（Originally contributed to the Journal of Philology.）[Most of this paper was written before the appearance of the second volume of Corssen's second edition of his Aussprache, Vokalismus, &c., der Lateinischen Sprache. It is satisfactory to find that the view here expressed is in the main identical with Corssen's, who discusses the subject at some length, vol. ii. p. 436 foll.] The fact that Virgil allowed himself certain licences in the way of lengthening short final syllables, licences which were wholly or in great part avoided by his immediate predecessors in poetry, has, as was natural, often been noticed. The most detailed discussion of the matter is that of Philip Wagner in No. XII. of his Quaestiones Vergilianae. Gossrau has a paragraph upon it in the “Excursus de Hexametro Vergilii” affixed to his edition of the Aeneid of 1846: but this paragraph is, as the writer himself professes, little more than a simpler reproduction of what Wagner had said. The subject is treated briefly by Lachmann (on Lucr. 2.27) and comprehensively by Lucian Müller (De Re Metrica, p. 324—333): but A. Weidner (Commentar zu Vergil's Aeneis I. und II.) takes no notice of the instances occurring in those books. While Ph. Wagner and Lucian Müller would account for these licences almost entirely on the ground of the position of the word in the verse, the Plautine critics (1 Ritschl, fleckeisen, and W. Wagner) have thought that in some cases at least Virgil was not unconscious of the same uncertainty of quantity which prevailed in the earlier period of Latin poetry. The object of this paper is to show that neither explanation is wholly true: that Virgil, though probably unconscious of any grammatical or etymological propriety in the employment of these scansions, and though always anxious to consult the requirements of metrical elegance, still did not employ them without due selection and a regard to the usage of the earlier writers, however imperfectly the reasons of this usage were understood in his own day. The most decided innovation2 introduced into the hexameter by Virgil, the lengthening of the first que in verse-beginnings like “Liminaque laurusque Dei” or verseendings like “Noemonaque Prytanimque”, need not detain us, as it is an obvious imitation of Homer's Λάμπον τε Κλύτιόν τε, Προθοήνωρ τε Κλόνιός τε κ.τ.λ. In Homer τε is mostly lengthened before double consonants, liquids, and sibilants; and Virgil has scrupulously followed his master. Of the sixteen instances collected by Wagner fourteen present que lengthened before a double consonant: the other two are “Liminaque laurusque” (A. 3. 91) and “Eurique Zephyrique” (G. 1. 371). Neither is it necessary to dwell upon endings like “molli fultus hyacintho,” “linquens profugus hymenaeos,” which, like Catullus' “non despexit hymenaeos,” “novo auctus hymenaeo,” are clearly due to the Greek rhythm. The rest of these licences are distinctly traceable to Roman sources, and require a longer consideration. The early poetry of Greece and Rome is marked by considerable uncertainty of quantity: thus in the Homeric poems we have both ᾿α_νήρ and ᾿α^νήρ, φι?λος and φι?́λος, ᾿α_πονέεσθαι and ᾿α^ποτῖσαι and so on. This uncertainty is observable in Latin chiefly in the final syllables of nouns and verbs: a fact probably due in great measure to the rule of Latin accentuation, which forbade the accent to fall on the last syllable3 Final syllables which were long by nature were obscured by the backward position of the accent, and gradually became short. This process did not stop at the Augustan age, but continued till even the final o of the present indicative was shortened by hexameter poets. Verse-writing at Rome began at a time when the tendency to shorten final vowels originally long had commenced, but had not nearly prevailed over the natural quantity. This state of things is most clearly discernible in Plautus: but it is sufficiently obvious even in the stricter measure of Ennius. Lucilius, as was natural, allowed himself, to a certain extent, a similar freedom; but the poets of the later republic, Catullus and Lucretius, became much stricter. Except in Greek endings like “despexit hymenaeos,” &c., Catullus never lengthens a short final vowel, unless we are to count the much-emended line 100. 6, “Perfecta exigitur unica amicitia,” to which Mr. Ellis apparently does not object. Two instances have been restored to Lucretius by Mr. Munro: 2. 27, “Nec domus argento fulget auroque renidet,” and 5. 1049, “Quid vellet facere ut sciret animoque videret:” but even these were altered by Lachmann or with his approval, for they are solitary in his author. There is nothing of the kind in the fragments of Cicero's verses. Virgil deserted the strictness of his immediate predecessors, and recurred, to a certain extent, to the practice of Ennius4. It will be worth while to compare the usages of the two poets in detail. (1) Lengthening of final syllables in r. (a) Nouns. Masculines in or. As far as I can ascertain there is no instance in the fragments of Ennius where this ending is short5 either in arsis or thesis. Ennius writes not only: “Postilla, germana soror, errare videbar” (Ann. 42), “O pater, O genitor O sanguen Dis oriundum” (Ann. 117), “Qui clamor oppugnantis vagore volanti” (Ann. 408), “Tollitur in caelum clamor exortus utrimque” (Ann. 422), “Imbricitor aquiloque suo cum flamine contra” (Ann. 424), but also “Clamor in caelum volvendus per aethera vagit” (Ann. 520), unless with Lachmann we follow the indication given by Quintilian6 and read clamos. Compare with the lines of Ennius above quoted the following from Virgil: “Omnia vincit Amor, et nos cedamus Amori” (E. 10. 69). “Acquus uterque labor: aeque iuvenemque magistri” (G. 3. 118). “Nam duo sunt genera, hic melior, insignis et ore” (G. 4. 92). “Luctus, ubique pavor, et plurima mortis imago” (A. 2. 369). “Et Capys, et Numitor, et qui te nomine reddet” (A. 6. 768). “Considant, si tantus amor, et moenia condant” (A. 11. 323). “Quippe dolor, omnis stetit imo volnere sanguis” (A. 12. 422). “Et Messapus equum domitor, et fortis Asilas” (ib. 550) Lucian Müller thinks the caesura sufficient to account for all these cases both in Ennius and Virgil, denies the possibility of clamor in thesis, and asserts that in the second part of the sixth century A.U.C. this syllable was mostly shortened. No case of such shortening, however, as has been seen, can be quoted from Ennius. Virgil, who was probably ignorant of the reason which made Ennius write as he did, viz. the original length of this syllable, which corresponds to the Greek -ωρ or -ων, and who only wished to give an antique flavour to his verse by suggesting such echoes of the Ennian hexameter, would never have dreamed of using the final or long except in arsis: but Müller can hardly be right in applying the same measure to both poets. How purely a matter of form this licence was with Virgil will become apparent when we consider how far, and (from an etymological point of view) how unjustifiably, he pushes his employment of it. Ennius, using iubar masculine, may have had some justification for writing “Interea fugit albus iubar Hyperionis cursum” (A. 547)7, but no grammatical propriety can be alleged for such scansions as “Desine plura, puer, et quod nunc instat agamus” (Verg. E. 9. 66); “Si quis ebur, aut mixta rubent ubi lilia multa” (A. 12. 68); still less for “Pingue super oleum infundens ardentibus extis” (A. 6. 254). The lines “Ostentans artemque pater arcumque sonantem” (A. 5. 521) and “Congredior: fer sacra pater et concipe foedus” (A. 12. 13) would seem to recall the original length of the final syllable of pater: but this had been forgotten as early as Ennius, who constantly uses it short. This is doubted by Corssen (l. c. p. 502). （b) Inflections of verbs ending in r. Ennius writes “Quirine Pater veneror Horamque Quirini” (Ann. 121), in accordance with the natural length of the syllable and the analogy of Plautine usage: but Virgil, who has not imitated him in lengthening the last syllable of the first person sing. passive, has lengthened that of the third in the following instances: “Altius ingreditur et mollia crura reponit” (G. 3. 76). “Tum sic Mercurium alloquitur, et talia mandat” (A. 4. 222). “Olli serva datur, operum haud ignara Minervae” (A. 5. 284). This syllable is invariably short in Ennius, except in the very doubtful fragment “horitatur induperator” Ann. 350, nor is it often, if at all, long in Plautus. The first person plural has its ending lengthened by Virgil, A. 2. 411, “Nostrorum obruimur, oriturque miserrima caedes,” again without precedent in the fragments of Ennius. (2) Lengthening of final syllables in s. (a) Nouns. The last syllable of sanguis (= sanguin-s) was originally long, and so is always used by Lucretius and once by Virgil. The length of the last syllable of pulvis in Ennius (Ann. 286), “Iamque fere pulvis ad caelum vasta videtur, and in Virgil (A. 1. 478),
” “Per terram, et versa pulvis inscribitur hasta,” is probably to be originally accounted for by the fact that pulvis = pulvis-s as Ceres= Ceres-s. But there is some difficulty about such a scansion as populūs (Enn. Ann. 90), “Iamque expectabat populus atque ora tenebat;” followed by Virgil, G. 3. 189, 4. 453, A. 5. 337: “Invalidus, etiamque tremens, etiam inscius aevi:
Non te nullius exercent numinis irae:
Emicat Euryalus, et munere victor amici.
” This is a licence which is doubtful even in Plautus (Müller, Pl. Pr. p. 52), and it seems most probable that Ennius (and after him Virgil) was imitating the lengthening of the Greek -ος of the second declension in such lines as Iliad 1. 153, 244, “Δεῦρο μαχησόμενος, ἐπεὶ οὔτι μοι αἴτιοί εἰσιν.
Χωόμενος, ὅτ᾽ ἄριστον Ἀχαιῶν οὐδὲν ἔτισας.
” “Fatalisque manus, infensa Etruria Turno” (A. 12. 232) and “Sicubi magna Iovis antiquo robore quercus” (G. 3. 332) may perhaps be considered an extension of this licence. So A. 3. 112, “Idaeumque nemus: hic fida silentia sacris.” Whether Ennius lengthened the dative plural in -bus cannot be ascertained, and such a scansion is not frequent in Plautus. But Virgil does not hesitate to write (A. 4. 64) “Pectoribus inhians spirantia consulit exta.
” （b) Verbs. The only cases seem to be A. 9. 610, “Terga fatigamus hasta,” a quantity for which no analogy can be proved in Ennius, though Plautus perhaps has “Venimūs” Curc. 438, and Lucilius “iacimūs” 9 p. 6 (Gerlach): and 11. 111, “Oratis: equidem et vivis concedere vellem.” (3) Endings in t. Third person singular of verbs. The -at of the indicative present 1st conjugation, though long by nature and frequently scanned accordingly in Plautus, is of variable quantity in Ennius, but mostly long. Compare “Solus avem servat: at Romulus pulcher in alto” (Ann. 83), “Inde sibi memorat unum superesse laborem” (Ann. 159), “Quae nunc te coquit et versat in pectore fixa” (Ann. 340), “Tum timido manat ex omni pectore sudor” (Ann. 399), with “Missaque per pectus dum transit striderăt hasta” (Ann. 365). Virgil has no imitation of this. -At of the imperfect is long in Plautus, and so in Ennius even in thesis, Ann. 314, “Noenum rumores ponebat ante salutem:
” but short, Ann. 141, “Volturus in spinis miserum mandebăt homonem.
” So Virgil (but only in arsis8), E. 1. 39, A. 5. 853, 7. 174, 10. 383, 12. 772: “Tityrus hinc aberat: ipsae te, Tityre, pinus:
Nusquam amittebat, oculosque sub astra tenebat:
Regibus omen erat: hoc illis curia, templum:
Per medium qua spina dabat: hastamque receptat:
Hic hasta Aeneae stabat: huc impetus illam.
” -Et in the present and future indicative and imperfect subjunctive is both long and short in Plautus. Ennius uses it long even in thesis, Ann. 86: “Omnibus cura viris uter esset induperator:” in arsis, Ann. 100, 171, 349, 409, “Nec pol homo quisquam faciet inpune animatus:
Inicit irritatus: tenet occasus, iuvat res:
Pugnandi fieret aut duri finis laboris:
prandere iubet horiturque: but decĕt Ann. 229,
Nec me rem decet hanc carinantibus edere chartis.
” Compare the cases from Lucretius quoted above and Virgil, A. 1. 308, 651: “Qui teneat, nam inculta videt, hominesne feraene;
Pergama cum peteret inconcessosque hymenaeos.
” _It of the present (3rd conjugation) is constantly short in Ennius, but long Ann. 123, “Mensas constituit idemque ancilia” (if this be the present), 346, 484, “Sensit, voce sua nictit ululatque ibi acute:
Multa foro ponit et agea longa repletur.
” So occasionally in the comedians (C. F. W. Müller, p. 79). Virgil, E. 7. 23, A. 9. 9, 10. 433, has “Versibus ille facit; aut si non possumus omnes:
Sceptra Palatini sedemque petit Evandri:
Tela manusque sinit. Hic Pallas instat et urget.
” _It of the fourth conjugation is long in Ennius, Ann. 258, “Alter nare cupit, alter pugnare paratust
” (if cupit be from cupire). Comp. Ann. 419, “It eques et plausu cava concutit ungula terram:
” 432, “Configunt parmam, tinnit hastilibus umbo:” 386 (thesis), “Infit, O cives, quae me fortuna ferocem.” Virgil has no instances. _It of the first future is short Enn. Ann. 153, “Hac noctu filo pendebit Etruria tota, and there is no instance in his fragments of its being lengthened.
” Virgil has erīt twice; E. 3. 97, A. 12. 883: “Ipse ubi tempus erit, omnes in fonte lavabo:
Te sine, frater, erit? O quae satis ima dehiscat9
” _It of the present subjunctive and second future is long in Plautus: so also Ennius has fuerīt and dederīt, Ann. 128, 165, “Si quid me fuerit humanitus ut teneatis:
At sese, sum quae dederit in luminis oras.
” Compare velīt Ann. 200, “Vosne velīt an me regnare era quidve ferat Fors.
” No instances in Virgil. _It of the perfect indicative is often long in Plautus (references in Müller, Pl. Pr. p. 71), but Ennius, though he writes (Ann. 599) “Qua murum fieri voluit, urgentur in unum,” makes it mostly short: a strange fact, as the original length of the vowel is unquestionable. The long scansion was afterwards taken up by Ovid in the case of words compounded with eo (subiīt &c., and Virgil writes (G. 2. 211, A. 8. 363) “At rudis enituit impulso vomere campus:
Alcides subiit, haec illum regia cepit.
” In A. 10. 394 Virgil extends this licence to lengthening the last syllable of caput. Procul (“arcemque procul ac rara domorum” A. 8. 98) stands by itself10. It will be seen from the instances quoted that Virgil, though on the whole following the lines marked out by the early Roman poetry, never allows himself these licences except in arsis, and but seldom where there is not a slight break in the sentence11. By Ennius these limitations were far less rigorously observed. Virgil considered such scansions as antiquarian ornaments, and as such they were to a certain extent taken up from him by Ovid, Propertius, Tibullus, and the later poets. H. NETTLESHIP.