Manum extremam, ‘ultimam,’ ‘summam inponere’ is a common phrase for completing a thing: see the Dictionaries. The metaphor is taken, as Serv. and Donatus remark, from a work of art. “Nec minus interea” 6. 212.
 The army seems to have consisted of shepherds (vv. 519 foll.); so that ‘ex acie’ must mean that they broke up their battle array and ran to the city. It seems to be implied that they were defeated, if not routed.
 Ora Galaesi as connected with ‘reportant’ is a periphrasis for ‘Galaesum’ (comp. 4. 511, G. 4. 12): in itself however it is not a mere periphrasis, but fixes attention on the face, as the part in which the ghastliness and disfigurement of his violent death were most visible: comp. 2. 286 (of the mangled apparition of Hector), “quae caussa indigna serenos Foedavit voltus?” The construction thus brings out the double sense of ‘foedare,’ which is both to wound and to disfigure.
 Comp. the phrase “deorum atque hominum fidem inplorare,” and Cic. 2 Verr. 5. sub fin., “Ceteros item deos deasque omnes inploro atque obtestor.” ‘Obtestantur Latinum’ probably denotes merely an appeal for protection, and not, as Forb. thinks after Serv., an appeal to witness the breach of the treaty which Turnus either threatens himself (see above vv. 467 foll.) or bids them expect from the Trojans (comp. 10. 77, where the Trojans are charged with employing fire against the Latins). So “ipsum obtestemur” 11. 358.
 Heyne, following the editors before Heins., reads ‘ignis,’ which, if taken with ‘terrorem,’ would give a good sense, ‘terrorem caedis et ignis’ being the alarm of fire and sword. But this reading is supported only by Gud. and some inferior MSS. (including the Balliol) and by Donatus; while the authority of the other MSS. and Serv. is in favour of ‘igni,’ which was the reading of Heins., and has been restored by Wagn. ‘Igni’ also may derive some confirmation from the structure of the verse, which is similar to 6. 255, “Ecce autem primi sub lumina solis et ortus.” Poetically speaking, ‘igni’ seems preferable: that is, ‘medio in crimine’ would be improved by amplification, while ‘terrorem’ would perhaps be weakened by it. On the other hand it must be admitted that ‘ignis criminis’ is somewhat a bold metaphor in Latin; it is helped out however by the zeugma, which enables us to take ‘medio in crimine caedis et igni’ as a kind of hendiadys, “in the midst of the furious outcry at the slaughter,” and supported by 11. 225, “medio in flagrante tumultu,” where, though the expression is much more common, the image is really the same, and the turn of the words sufficiently similar to make it probable that Virg. wrote ‘igni’ here.
[578, 579] Terrorem by itself seems best referred to the threats of Turnus. Cic. Brut. 11, § 44 speaks of “[Periclis] vim dicendi terroremque.” ‘In regna,’ “in partem regni:” comp. v. 313. Turnus speaks as usual of Aeneas and the Trojans as one: but the grievance is not the admission of the Trojans as subjects of Latinus, but the association of a foreigner in the empire. So ‘admisceri’ is rather “regiae domo” than “Latinorum populo,” and ‘limine’ is the royal house. Gossrau comp. “limine prohiberi” Cic. pro Caec. 12, § 35, Emm., “limine summoveor” Juv. 3. 124. ‘Admisceri’ refers to the mixture of blood: comp. 6. 762., 8. 510. There may be a taint of effeminacy implied in ‘Phrygiam,’ as Forb. thinks.
 Attonitae Baccho, inspired by Bacchus: the word is common for strong divine influence, as in 6. 53, Hor. 3 Od. 19. 14. “attonitus vates.” So Archiloch fr. 79 Bergk, οἴνῳ συγκεραυνωθεὶς φρένας. ‘Matres,’ i. q. “matronae,” ‘quorum’ being probably their relations generally. ‘Insultant nemora’ is a Grecism: comp. Soph. Aj. 30, “πηδῶντα πεδία” &c. Comp. also “navigat aequor” (1. 67), “natat freta” (G. 3. 260), and the converse construction in “bacchata virginibus Taygeta” (G. 2. 487).
 “Undique collecti” 2. 414. ‘Martem’ is the substance of the reiterated cry expressed by ‘fatigant.’ “Cry, War, War!” This seems the best way of explaining the acc., which in Greek would be readily accounted for as a cogn. There is a somewhat similar use in Sil. 2. 675, “Inde agitant consulta patres curasque fatigant.” To take ‘Martem’ as the god and ‘fatigant’ as i. q. “precibus fatigant” would be simpler; but we should then lose the force of ‘fatigant’ as expressing the effect on Latinus.
 Infandum (i. q. “nefandum”) is explained by ‘contra omina—contra fata.’ The ‘omina’ are those narrated vv. 46 foll. ‘Fata deum’ refers to the oracle of Faunus vv. 96 foll. ‘Ilicet’ seems to show that ‘poscunt bellum’ is a stage beyond ‘Martem fatigant:’ they call definitely for war.
 Perversus occurs E. 3. 13 as a synonym for “malignus,” which is probably its sense here (comp. Catalecta 14. 7, “perversi Manes”). “Hic dies perversus atque adversus mihi obtigit” Plant. Men. 5. 1. Serv., who is followed by Gossrau, takes ‘perverso’ as i. q. “adverso:” Heyne, with whom Forb. agrees, renders ‘perverso numine’ “perversa, conturbata, et infirmata deorum voluntate.” They are going against the will of heaven and fate, but it is under the influence of a malign preternatural power.
 This simile is an amplified and ornamented imitation of Il. 15. 618 foll., where the image is applied to the serried array of the Greeks, repulsing a charge of the Trojans.
 Heyne, following Heins., has abolished this line on grounds which he thinks obvious, but which are difficult to apprehend. It occurs in all the MSS. except the 2nd Leipsic of the 13th century. In two others, the second Mentelian and the Bigotian, it is added as a correction, having, no doubt, been omitted by accident, not being necessary to the construction. The repetition of ‘pelagi rupes,’ which is obviously for poetic effect, may be paralleled from Il. 20. 371, Τῷ δ᾽ ἐγὼ ἀντίος εἶμι, καὶ εἰ πυρὶ χεῖρας ἔοικεν, Εἰ πυρὶ χεῖρας ἔοικε, μένος δ᾽ αἴθωνι σιδήρῳ: ib. 22. 127, ἅτε παρθένος ἠΐθεός τε, Παρθένος ἠΐθεός τ᾽ ὀαρίζετον ἀλλήλοιϊν: and from Lucr. 5.950, “proluvie larga lavere humida saxa, Humida saxa, super viridi stillantia musco.” Comp. also 12. 546, “domus alta sub Ida, Lyrnesi domus alta.”
 Mole is of course for “mole sua” (10. 771), which would be the more regular expression. Med. (corrected), Verona fragm. &c. omit ‘et,’ owing to a wrong punctuation, condemned by Serv., by which the stop was placed after ‘scopuli.’ ‘Scopuli’ are the peaks, ‘saxa’ the smaller rocks over which the sea breaks (‘spumea’), while ‘rupes’ is the whole cliff. ‘Nequiquam,’ because, in spite of the din, the cliff remains unmoved.
 Laterique &c. is not an idle addition, as Wagn. thinks, but adds to the picture both of the violence of the waves and the stability of the rock. Some copies have ‘aspersa’ for ‘inlisa.’
 Comp. 3. 670, “Verum ubi nulla datur dextra adfectare potestas.” It is difficult to say whether ‘caecum consilium’ is the hidden purpose of Juno and the Fury or, as Serv. and others take it, the blind will of the people.
Comp. 9. 24, “Multa deos orans,
oneravitque aethera votis.” ‘Inanis’ is
an ordinary epithet of ‘auras;’ here however
it denotes the ineffectualness of the
protest, a feeling which Latinus may have
expressed. Comp. Catull. 62 (64). 164
“Sed quid ego ignaris nequiquam conqueror
Externata malo, quae nullis sensibus auctae
Nec missas audire queunt nec reddere voces?
 ‘Has poenas,’ the penalty of this: see on 2. 171. ‘Sacrilego,’ because it was against the will of heaven: comp. vv. 583, 4. “Scelerato sanguine” 12. 949. ‘Ipsi,’ in your own persons, not in mine: see v. 598.
 Nefas, the punishment of crime: comp. 7. 307, “Quod scelus aut Lapithas tantum, aut Calydona merentem?” For ‘manebit’ we might have expected “manet:” Latinus however is not speaking destiny, but denouncing punishment contingently on crime.
 Nam refers to what precedes. ‘You will suffer, not I: for’ &c. The difficulty of ‘omnisque in limine portus’ is well known. Serv. renders it “securitas omnis in promptu est,” taking ‘portus’ as the nom., and so it seems to have been understood by Paullinus, Carm. 12. 31, who evidently imitates Virg., “Inque tuo placidus nobis sit limine portus.” Ruhkopf interprets it similarly, “omne auxilium mihi ante pedes et paratum est seni,” and Wagn. and Forb. concur. On the other hand Heyne makes ‘portus’ gen., paraphrasing the words “ego omnis, totus, sum in limine, aditu, portus; in portu iam tantum non navigo;” and so Gossrau, “iam prope absum a portu, iam sum ad limen portus, quem introeam.” The objection to the former view seems to be the apparent confusion of metaphor between ‘portus’ and ‘limine’ (‘in limine’ not having been yet shown to be a current synonyme for “in promptu”), and the application of ‘omnis’ to ‘portus,’ which, though it may very well be used simply for ‘rest’ in a context for this, like our ‘haven,’ could hardly be generalized by ‘omnis,’ while the order of the words is rather against taking ‘omnis’ as a predicate, i. q. “omnino in limine.” The objection to the latter is the omission of ‘sum,’ and generally the want of specification of the subject of the clause. This would be removed by taking away the stop after ‘portus,’ so as to make ‘spolior’ the principal verb: but the sense would then seem scarcely to cohere, Latinus saying in one breath that he has rest in store for him and that he loses a happy death. Ladewig attempts to bring the clause into harmony by adopting a variant in the Codex Minoraugiensis, ‘non’ for ‘nam,’ Latinus being made to say that he had lost his prospect of peace. A better way of expressing this would be to read ‘rapta’ for ‘parta,’ just as in 8. 317 “rapto” for “parto” is one of the readings of Med. But this is clearly not what Virg. means: the gist of Latinus' speech is not that Turnus and the Latins will suffer for disturbing the quiet of his last days, but that retribution for the war will fall on them, not on him; all that he can lose is a death of quiet, his final rest being assured. Possibly this may be expressed by the sentence punctuated as proposed above, ‘omnisque in limine portus Funere felici spolior,’ if we suppose the main stress to fall on the first words, ‘it is only when just on the harbour's verge that I am robbed of a happy death:’ but the sentence then would be inconveniently loaded. On the whole it seems best to accept the ellipse of ‘sum,’ awkward as it is, supposing that Virg. trusted to the proximity of ‘spolior’ to make the subject of the clause clear. Canon. has a remarkable reading, “somnusque in limine partus:” but though this would remove all difficulty, it seems hardly in the style of Virg., who would scarcely have repeated ‘partus’ from ‘parta’ except as substitute for “quae:” see on E. 4. 6. Wordsworth on Theocr. 2. 126 had already conjectured ‘somni’ for ‘omnis,’ a very plausible change if we were dealing with an author whose text was less supported by MSS. “Vobis parta quies” 3. 495 (see on 2. 784), though the ‘quies’ of Helenus and Andromache, like that of Antenor 1. 249, is peaceful life, not death. The metaphorical use of ‘portus’ is as old as Enn. Thyest. fr. 16, “Neque sepulcrum quo recipiat habeat, portum corporis, Ubi remissa humana vita corpus requiescat malis.”
 “Linquebat habenas” 11. 827. “Legum habenae” occurs in a poet quoted by Cic. de Or. 3. 41; “habenas profundi” Lucr. 2.1096. By the secession of Latinus, as Heyne observes, Turnus becomes chief of the Latin confederacy, in which otherwise, though called “rex,” he is a subordinate, so that, though a Rutulian, he is called “Laurens Turnus” (v. 650).
[601-640] ‘War is formally declared, according to a custom still observed at Rome, by opening the temple of the wargod, an act here performed by Juno herself. Five great cities of the Ausonian confederacy rush to arms.’