“Sate sanguine divom” 6. 125. ‘Gente deum’ is not as in 10. 228., 11. 305, a race sprung from the gods, but a race consisting of gods. ‘Troianam urbem:’ comp. 1. 68, “Ilium in Italiam portans” and see on 2. 703., 3. 86. ‘Revehis,’ because Dardanus had come from Italy: comp. 7. 240 &c.
 Some copyists, misunderstanding ‘concessere,’ filled up the line with “profugis nova moenia Teucris,” which is found in Canon. and some other MSS., and mentioned with disapprobation by Serv. ‘Concessere’ have given way, doubtless to milder feelings. Comp. Soph. Ant. 718, ἀλλ᾽ εἶκε θυμοῦ καὶ μετάστασιν δίδου.
 Iamque may either indicate a transition (see Wagn. Q. V. 24. 9) or may have its ordinary sense of “just now” or “already,” implying that what is prophesied will take place immediately. The incompleteness of v. 41 makes the precise sense here uncertain. The omen here promised by the Tiber as a confirmation of the vision had been promised already by Helenus 3. 388 foll., though with a different object: see on v. 46. Here the white sow is Alba; the thirty young ones are the thirty years that were to elapse between the building of Lavinium and Alba (v. 47); an explanation of the legend as old as Varro, R. R. 2. 4, L. L. 5. § 144. For the various forms of the legend see Lewis vol. 1. pp. 334, 354, 5. The symbolizing of the thirty years by the thirty pigs is like the symbolizing of the nine years of unsuccessful siege by the sparrow and her eight young ones in Il. 2. 326 foll. For ‘ne’ Rom. has ‘nec.’ The lines 43—45 are repeated from 3. 390— 392, where see notes.
 This line is repeated from 3. 393 with only the substitution of ‘hic’ for ‘is.’ It is wanting in Med. and Pal., and in Gud. originally, and is omitted by Ribbeck, but it is apparently found in the rest of his cursives, as well as in Rom. Internal evidence seems in favour of omitting it, as being really embarrassing to the context, not, as Heyne and Wagn. think, indispensable to it. It is one thing to interpret the omen as showing the place where Lavinium is to be built, another to explain the white sow of Alba, the thirty pigs of the thirty years. Helenus confines himself to the first: the Tiber, according to the common text, passes from one to the other so as rather to confuse the two. It seems better to suppose that he simply speaks from the latter point of view, ‘ex quo’ being explained as ‘ex quo prodigio’ with Ribbeck. This is confirmed by Serv., who interprets “ex qua ratiocinatione,” and makes no remark on the line before us. We may note that Aeneas takes no notice of the place on waking, either in his address to the river or when he sees the sow. The line then should at least be bracketed, if not struck from the text. It is a further objection to the genuineness of this line that ‘hic’ must be taken with great latitude, Lavinium being twelve Roman miles from the Tiber: and this, which would be nothing where the country was the thing indicated, as in the prophecy of Helenus, seems harsh when Aeneas has found the country, and the thing to be indicated is the particular site of his town. Nor is it likely perhaps that Virg. should have inserted the line so soon after v. 39, to which it bears some resemblance. Heyne suggests that the passage may have run ‘Concessere deum. Nunc qua ratione quod instat’ &c., all between being an interpolation, which is very unlikely, since in vv. 81 foll. there is no reference to Helenus or the occurrence of the omen, and it would hardly occur without introduction or explanation.
 The prophecy of the thirty years had already occurred, though without a symbol, 1. 269, where however a period of three years is interposed before the foundation of Lavinium. ‘Redeuntibus annis’ is from Lucr. 1.311, “multis solis redeuntibus annis,” and both perhaps from the Homeric περιπλομένων ἐνιαυτῶν (Od. 1. 16). In Lucr. the present participle is used strictly, the action going on during the whole time designated: in Hom. the action happens at some one point in the time, which is also the case in such expressions as “volventibus annis” 1. 234, “lustris labentibus” ib. 283: in the present passage the action does not take place till the completion of the time, so that the present part. is used improperly.
 Clari seems rightly taken by Heyne to refer to ‘Alba’ by a play upon the word. The town was really named from the white rocks on which it stood. Ruhkopf compares the epithet of Camirus, ἀργινόεις, Il. 2. 656. So “claram Rhodon” Hor. 1 Od. 7. 1 is explained ‘sunny.’ ‘Cognominis’ descriptive gen.
 “Non iniussa cano” E. 6. 9, where ‘non’ goes with ‘cano,’ while ‘haud’ as usual qualifies not the verb but the adj. ‘Nunc—docebo’ repeated from 4. 115, 6, with the change of “confieri possit” into ‘expedias victor.’
 For the fable of Evander see Lewis vol. 1. pp. 283 foll. Pallas, according to one story, was the son of Lycaon, grandfather of Evander, and the heroic founder of Pallantium. ‘Profectus’ of origin is found in prose, “Zenoque et ii qui ab eo essent profecti” Cic. De Div. 1. 3. Some difficulty has been felt about the construction, Heyne supposing an anacoluthon and supplying “habitant” after ‘oris,’ while others have thought ‘ducunt’ v. 55 the principal verb: but Wagn. is clearly right in understanding ‘secuti’ as “secuti sunt.”
 ‘His oris’ goes with ‘delegere locum,’ not with ‘posuere in montibus urbem,’ the latter being appended, as Wagn. aptly remarks, to supply the place of ‘urbi,’ which we should have expected in the former clause. The plural ‘montibus’ may refer to the cluster of hills of which the Palatine was one.
 Proavi used vaguely, unless we suppose the Arcadians to be designated as children of Evander. “De nomine” 1. 367 &c.
 The Arcadians as Greeks would naturally be hostile to Aeneas, but a common enmity makes them friends. ‘Ducunt’ i. q. “gerunt,” with a further notion of length. ‘Ducere bellum’ is not uncommon in Caesar for protracting a war: see Freund. This long war between the Latins and the Arcadians seems quite inconsistent with the long peace spoken of 7. 46, unless we suppose ‘Latina’ to be used loosely for the Rutulians: comp. v. 146, and see on 7. 423.
 Pal., Gud. and others have ‘foedere,’ also mentioned as a variant by Serv.; but ‘foedera’ is more harmonious, and is supported by 4. 112., 7. 546, v. 641 below, 12. 822, better parallels than v. 169, 10. 105., 11. 356, which might be adduced on the other side. The change was probably made by some one who wished to bring the two clauses under a similar regimen. “Hunc cape consiliis socium et coniunge volentem” 5. 712.
 Superes is sufficiently explained by ‘adversum:’ the metaphor however seems to be from going up hill (“superate iugum” 6. 676). So in 1. 244, “fontem superare Timavi” may mean that Antenor sailed up the stream. In v. 95 the notion is rather that of rounding a projection, as in the passage from Lucilius quoted on 1. 243, from which Virg. may have taken ‘remis superes’ here. ‘Subvehi’ is a regular word for sailing or rowing against the stream. “Philippum lembis biremibus CXX flumine adverso subvectum” Livy 24. 40: comp. Caes. B. G. 1. 16.
 “Iunoni cane vota libens, dominamque potentem Supplicibus supera donis” 3. 438. ‘Fer preces’ like “ferre sacra, dona” &c. Canon. has ‘dominamque potentem’ here, and many MSS. (none of Ribbeck's) ‘donis’ in the next line.
 It is not clear whether ‘victor’ is used in reference to ‘supera,’ or whether it is to be taken in its ordinary sense, the Tiber bidding Aeneas wait till he is a conqueror before paying dues to himself, and thus prophesying him victory.
 Wagn. and Forb. contend that the construction is not ‘ego sum Thybris,’ which they think would be weak, but ‘ego sum,’ ‘it is I that speak,’ the rest being added in apposition. But it is difficult to see where the weakness would be shown, and the ordinary interpretation seems the natural way in which a stranger would announce himself, though in 10. 230 a comma is rightly placed after “nos sumus,” the meaning being ‘It is we, your old friends.’ ‘Pleno flumine’ is of course an honourable attribute of a river, like “pinguia culta secantem,” with which last comp. the description of Eridanus G. 4. 272, and that of Tiber himself A. 2. 781.
 This line has not yet been satisfactorily explained. The common interpretation understands ‘magna domus’ of Rome, the head over lofty cities, taking ‘exit’ to be a prophetic present. Gossrau, whom Wagn. now follows, supposes the meaning to be ‘Here, at the mouth of the river, is my home: my source emerges among lofty cities,’ dividing the verse into two clauses. Both views are given by Serv., though not very explicitly. Each appears to be liable to strong objections: on the one hand there is nothing to suggest a future reference in ‘exit;’ on the other the structure of the verse is in favour of taking ‘caput’ in apposition with ‘domus,’ and ‘caput exit urbibus’ would not be natural in the sense supposed. Perhaps we may combine the two views, taking ‘magna domus’ with Wagn. and others of the Tiber's palace under the water (comp. G. 4. 363 &c. of the home of Cyrene in the bed of the Peneus), which is said to rise or emerge by a blending of the two notions of a house rising into the air and a river rising from the ground, and is spoken of as destined to be the head of lofty cities, the allusion being to Rome. It seems probable from G. 4. l. c. that the palace of the river-nymphs is supposed to extend to a considerable length under the stream, and so Tiber here may speak of his home as extending to the place where Rome was after wards built. A place called “Tiberina atria,” of which Virg. may perhaps be thinking here, is mentioned by Ov. Fasti 4. 330. With ‘caput urbibus’ comp. “caput populis” 10. 203, “caput amnibus” Lucr. 5.270. The ambiguity is increased by our ignorance of the exact spot where Aeneas is supposed to see the Tiber, and by the fact that ‘exit’ and ‘caput’ are used in more senses than one in connexion with rivers, denoting both the source and the mouth: see on G. 4. 319.
[66-80] ‘Aeneas, awaking, prays to the Tiber, promising to worship him constantly in the event of success. He then prepares for his voyage.’