Juno passes over Pachynus on her return from Argos to Carthage, as the gods were supposed to visit each of their favourite seats in the course of the year. See, among many other instances, 4. 143. Here Virg. was thinking of the return of Poseidon from the Ethiopians, when he sees Odysseus on the sea, Od. 5. 282 foll. ‘Inachius’ of Argos 11. 286. ‘Referre se,’ 2. 657: comp. v. 700 below. With the following speech comp. Juno's speech 1. 34 foll.
 Heins. read ‘longo’ from Med. and apparently one other MS. The corruption probably arose from ‘aethere.’ ‘Longo’ might stand, not as= “longinquus,” which seems never to be the case, but as indicating the length of the prospect, and it is confirmed by Val. F. 3. 43, Stat. Theb. 12. 659, quoted by Heins. (comp. G. 3. 223): but ‘longe’ is simpler, has much greater authority, and is supported by Od. 5. 283, τηλόθεν ἐκ Σολύμων ὀρέων ἴδεν. “Longe prospexit” occurs again 11. 909.
 Moliri tecta v. 127: comp. 1. 424., 3. 132. ‘Fidere terrae,’ settle on it, as safe and assured: comp. 3. 387, “Quam tuta possis urbem conponere terrae,” and the use of “credere” v. 97 above. Some inferior MSS. have ‘sidere.’
 Fatis contraria nostris fata Phrygum, because the destinies of the Trojans and of Rome were contrary to, and conflicted with, those of Argos and Carthage, which were the favourites of Juno. This is the chief cause of her hostility in the Aeneid. Comp. 1. 12—24. ‘Fata contraria fatis’ of course implies the idea of a number of particular destinies acting like separate forces in the world, as opposed to that of one universal law. Comp. 9. 133 foll., and Venus' words 1. 239, “fatis contraria fata rependens,” where, though the fates spoken of are the prosperous and adverse fates of Troy, the contrast is really the same, as the adverse fates of Troy would be the prosperous fates of its enemies.
 This oxymoron is borrowed from Enn. A. 11. fr. 3 (preserved by Macrob. Sat. 6. 1), “Quae neque Dardaniis campis potuere perire, Nec, cum capta, capi, nec, cum combusta, cremari.” Heyne remarks that Virg. has here imitated the rhetorical point and spirit of the tragedians, especially of Euripides. See Introduction to Aeneid. “Iliacis occumbere campis” 1. 97. The whole Troad is supposed to take its name from the Sigean promontory (2. 312), as in 3. 108 from the Rhoetean. The object of ‘potuere occumbere’ is ‘Phryges,’ not ‘capti,’ which is confined to the next clause. For the general sentiment of the indestructibility of the Trojan race comp. the wellknown lines Hor. 4 Od. 4. 49 foll.
 Comp. 2. 632 foll., 664, Hor. Carm. Sec. 41 foll., and for the preposition with the second of two substantives 5. 512., 6. 692.
 Ausa is constructed with ‘quievi.’ She negatives the ironical supposition that the escape of the Trojans was owing to her inactivity by pointing to what she had done. Peerlkamp ingeniously conjectures ‘quaene,’ which Ribbeck supposes to be really identical with ‘quin.’ “Ausus quin etiam” 2. 768. ‘Excussos,’ forced out of, 9. 68.
 Ausa, ᾿τλᾶσα, ‘I who brought myself to follow them.’ Comp. 8. 364, “Aude, hospes, contemnere opes,” Hor. 1 Ep. 2. 40, “sapere aude.” ‘Toto ponto:’ Juno means that she had proved their enemy in every part of the deep: but the contest is represented as extending over the whole deep, to give an increased notion of grandeur.
 Securus with gen. 1. 350. ‘Mars’ &c. So in 1. 37 foll. Juno compares her case with that of Minerva, who had been permitted to destroy the Greek fleet for the sin of Ajax, son of Oileus. Serv. well remarks that she here chooses instances of destruction by war as there by shipwreck. The quarrel between the Centaurs and Lapithae at the marriage of Peirithous (in which the Lapithae were victorious) is generally, and by Virg. himself (G. 2. 456), ascribed to the influence of Bacchus. The only light on this passage seems to be derived from Serv., who has a story that Peirithous invited all the gods but Mars to the marriage feast, and that Mars in revenge for the slight brought about the quarrel: but this looks suspiciously like an adaptation of the very similar story of Diana's vengeance on Oeneus of Calydon, who had omitted to sacrifice to her when he sacrificed to all the other gods, Il. 9. 533 foll. The ascription of a bloody quarrel to Mars is natural enough, as the Greeks made him the author of violent deaths of all sorts (Aesch. Eum. 355), and even of pestilence (Soph. O. T. 191).
 Inmanem (gigantic) and ‘antiquam’ seem used to magnify the greatness of the enemies whom Mars and Diana had been permitted to destroy, compared with Aeneas—‘Vincor ab Aenea.’ ‘Dianae’ seems to be dat. after ‘concessit,’ “in iras” meaning ‘for purposes of vengeance.’
 The reading of this line is not certain. In Priscian's time, as appears from his words p. 1081, there were three readings, ‘Lapithas—Calydona merentem,’ ‘Lapithis—Calydone merente,’ and ‘Lapithis—Calydona merentem.’ Priscian thinks that the third can be explained as a double construction, but prefers the first or second. Serv. is for the second, as the only one which will make sense, but as he does not expressly mention the two others, merely objecting to reading ‘Calydona,’ it is not clear whether he is arguing against one or both. Of the MSS. Rom. is for the second, unequivocally; fragm. Vat. is for the third, though its original reading was ‘Calydo;’ Med. was originally for the second, except that it read ‘merentes,’ but its second reading is for the first; Gud. was originally for the third, but ‘merentem’ has been altered into ‘merente.’ Heins. restored the first, and subsequent editors have followed him: Ribbeck however recalls the second. The first is decidedly to be preferred to the second, as at once neater and more difficult, while in external authority they appear to be equal. If the third could be explained, it might easily be defended on external grounds, as the original reading which was altered in two ways for the sake of symmetry: but there is nothing in the context to supply any construction for ‘Lapithis,’ and to understand it as an abl. abs., borrowing ‘merentibus’ from ‘merentem,’ would be quite impossible. The most probable view then seems to be that the first was the original reading, that the second was introduced by some one who did not understand the construction (Pomponius Sabinus, retaining the accusatives, attempts to supply “vidisti”), and that the third is simply a mixture of the two. Ribbeck imagines that Virg. himself left a choice of readings, the first and second. The inferior MSS. multiply the variations almost indefinitely. ‘Quod scelus merentem,’ a variety for “cuius sceleris poenas merentem:” see on 2. 229, and for a further variety comp. 2. 585. Comp. “commeruisse culpam” Plaut. Capt. 2. 3. 42.
 Potui, ‘stooped to,’ which harmonizes with ‘infelix.’ So perhaps ‘potui’ 4. 600, ‘had the heart to,’ “non potui” being there explained like “non licuit” 4. 550. ‘Quae memet in omnia verti,’ who have taken every shape, i. e. tried every mode of opposition. Comp. Hdt. 3. 124, παντοίη ἐγίνετο μὴ ἀποδημῆσαι τὸν Πολυκράτεα. Cerda comp. “Verte omnis tete in facies” 12. 891, where Aeneas defies Turnus to escape him.
 ‘I am defeated by one man,’ as in 1. 47 she complains that she cannot prevail over a single nation (“una cum gente tot annos bella gero”), while Minerva could destroy the whole confederate fleet of Greece.
 “Namque aliud quid sit, quod iam inplorare queamus?” 10. 19. Juno here expresses euphemistically what she says plainly in the next line. This use of ‘usquam’ in an affirmative sentence for “uspiam” is rare and perhaps poetical. Freund cites Ov. M. 12. 41, “Unde quod est usquam, quamvis regionibus absit, Inspicitur.”
 Heyne quotes Aesch. Suppl. 160— 168, as containing a parallel sentiment. There is almost a play on the sense of ‘movebo,’ which = ‘flectere’ (“Quo fletu Manis, qua numina voce moveret?” G. 4. 505), and at the same time has the notion of stirring up or setting in action. Virg. may have thought of the phrase πάντα κινεῖν πέτρον, which Cerda comp., and of the language of Zeus to Hera Il. 8. 478 foll.
 For the notion that fate cannot be averted, but can be delayed, comp. 1. 299, Hdt. 1. 91. ‘Tantis’ seems meant to give a natural reason why they might be delayed. ‘Trahere’ seems better taken with “res” than ‘moras,’ though “trahere moram” is found. With ‘moras addere’ Gossrau comp. Ov. Her. 19. 8, “parvi temporis adde moram.”
 She includes Latinusin her enmity, and threatens in fact that he and Aeneas should be kings without nations.
 Mercede suorum may either be the price paid by their subjects, or their subjects paid as a price by themselves. The latter is perhaps better. For instances of this sense of ‘merces’ as the cost of an advantage see Forc.
 Comp. for ‘sanguine dotabere’ Aesch. Ag. 406, ἄγουσά τ᾽ (Ἑλένη) ἀντίφερνον Ἰλίῳ φθοράν. For ‘Rutulo’ we should have expected ‘Latino:’ but Juno has passed from the thought that the people of the two kings shall be destroyed to the more general thought that the bridal shall take place after bloodshed.
 Virg., like Euripides, and (according to Serv.) Ennius and Pacuvius, makes Hecuba the daughter of Cisseus. Hom. Il. 16. 718 makes her the daughter of Dymas, in which he is followed by Ov. M. 11. 762. This legend of Hecuba's having dreamed that she was pregnant with a burning torch before she brought forth Paris is alluded to by Enn. Alex. fr. 8, and by Cic. de Div. 1. 21. ‘Ignis iugalis,’ the conflagration caused by the union of Paris and Helen, which Hecuba is said to have brought forth in bringing forth Paris. The torch seems to have portended marriage, which was the source of the conflagration, as well as the conflagration itself. And this will give a double sense to ‘taedae’ below.
[321, 322] Venus shall have (or, has) such another offspring of her own. What follows is an explanation of ‘idem partus,’ ‘et’ being epexegetic, and ‘taedae’ answering to ‘face.’ ‘Quin’ confirms and adds to what has gone before. The parallel is of course between Paris and Helen on one side and Aeneas and Lavinia on the other. Aeneas is called a second Paris in a different connexion by Iarbas 4. 215. ‘Funestae’ seems to be an epithet, not a predicate, and ‘in Pergama’ is constructed with ‘taedae,’ or with the verbal notion which has to be supplied to the sentence. ‘Recidiva:’ note on 4. 344.
[323-340] ‘Juno calls up the Fury Allecto, and bids her sow enmity between the Latins and the Trojans.’