Animis Rutuli fragm. Vat., Rom., Gud. corrected, ‘animi Rutulis’ Med., Pal., Gud. originally, and so Serv. Either is Virgilian (comp. 2. 120., 5. 404 with 8. 530): rhetorically, either seems well adapted to the present passage: but perhaps ‘animis Rutuli’ has a rhythmical advantage.
 Rom. and originally Pal. have ‘turbatus,’ an obvious error. The frightening of the horses and their driver is perhaps from Il. 18. 223 foll. Messapus is repeatedly mentioned as “equum domitor,” 7. 691 &c. “Turbatis equis” 7. 767. ‘Et amnis,’ even the river.
 Rauca sonans closely with ‘cunctatur,’ the sound as well as the stopping being a sign of alarm. Serv. says “Licet antiquitas habuerit hic et haec amnis” (see Forc. ‘amnis’), “melius tamen est accipere ‘rauca sonans’ pro ‘rauce’ quam ‘rauca amnis.’” ‘Revocat pedem’ like “revocare gradum” 6. 128. Feet are attributed to running water by Lucr. 5. 272, Hor. Epod. 16. 48. This does not agree with the conception of river-gods, who are separable from their waters: but it may be illustrated by Hom.'s notion of Xanthus, who appears in a human form to speak to Achilles, but is himself identified with the river (Il. 21. 213, 356, where v. 366 may be compared with the present passage). ‘Ab alto,’ from the sea to which he was hastening.
 Not only does Turnus not lose heart at the portent, but beyond that (‘ultro:’ see on 2. 145., 5. 55) he makes it a means of encouraging his followers. D. Heinsius put a comma before ‘dictis,’ apparently supposing ‘animos tollit’ to mean ‘raises his own spirits,’ as in 10. 250, G. 2. 350. Serv. explains ‘animos tollit dictis’ “magnitudinem suam comprobat dictis.”
 “‘Petunt,’ id est, appetunt: hoc est, ad Troianos pertinet damnum” Serv. ‘His’ is doubtless the Trojans, as the position in the sentence shows, not, as might be suggested, “his monstris.”
 The subject of ‘exspectant’ may be “naves,” as Gossrau thinks: but it would suit the structure of the sentence better to make it ‘Troiani,’ the sense being really the same, “exspectant ad naves delendas.” Ribbeck and now Wagn. read ‘exspectans,’ the original reading of Med., confirmed by an erasure in one of Ribbeck's cursives: but this does not seem so good. ‘Tela’ is used vaguely, the main thing in the poet's mind being the weapons with which the ships would be destroyed, which is explained by ‘ignis.’
 In manibus nostris, the order before Heins., is found in none of Ribbeck's MSS. Peerlkamp rightly argues against Wagn. that either might stand. Med. Rom., and others have ‘gentis,’ but ‘gentes,’ in apposition with ‘milia,’ is better. ‘Tot’ gives the reason for what precedes, as in 7. 447 &c.
 “Sat patriae Priamoque datum” 2. 291. Turnus speaks as if he were aware of Venus' conversation with Neptune, 5. 779 foll. With Jahn, I have restored ‘datum est’ from frag. Vat., Pal., Rom., Gud., and two other of Ribbeck's cursives, supposing the omission of ‘est’ to have arisen from a recollection of 2. 291, a common source of error in Med.
 If there is any force in ‘fertilis,’ it probably gives the reason for which the Trojans looked forward to Italy, and points a sarcasm, as if they were to see the plenty of the country, but not enjoy it. Comp. Creusa's promise 2. 781, “terram Hesperiam venies, ubi Lydius arva Inter opima virum leni fluit agmine Thybris.”
 Serv. remarks that this assertion of Turnus about his destiny is false, adding however that the art of rhetoric admits the use of falsehood where it cannot be disproved, as in this case. He further observes that it is Turnus' consciousness that he is telling a falsehood which makes him anxious to support his case by argument, talking of the injustice of the Trojans. The falsehood however depends to some extent on the sense given to ‘fata,’ which Serv. understands of oracles, but which seems rather to mean destiny, on a comParison of 1. 257., 7. 293. In this sense Turnus might assert his belief in his own destiny, though it might not have been expressly revealed to him, founding it, as he seems to do here, on his conviction of the goodness of his cause, much as Hector Il. 12. 243 says εἷς οἰωνὸς ἄριστος ἀμύνεσθαι περὶ πάτρης. ‘Ferro exscindere:’ see on 6. 553. “Exscindere gentem” 4. 425.
 Coniuge praerepta like “ereptae coniugis” 3. 330, as we talk of robbing a man of his bride, meaning that the deprivation has prevented the marriage. ‘Nec’ &c.: the taunt, as Macrob. Sat. 4. 4. (who reads ‘an’ for ‘nec’) remarks, is from Il. 9. 340, ἠ μοῦνοι φιλέουσ᾽ ἀλόχους μερόπων ἀνθρώπων Ἀτρεῖδαι;
 Iste is apparently to be explained with reference to the Trojans, ‘that pain which ye are wont to inflict.’ It might however refer to an imaginary antagonist, ‘that pain of which you tell us.’
[140, 141] He again supposes himself to be arguing against the Trojans, who are made to plead that they have satisfied the requirement of destiny or the malice of fortune by having been ruined once, much as Aeneas actually pleads 6. 62. ‘Si’ is read by some MSS., including Gud. corrected, for ‘sed.’ There is the same variety in Hor. 1 Ep. 1. 57, 58. ‘Fuisset’ = “esse debebat:” comp. 4. 678., 8. 643. For ‘peccare’ some copies have ‘peccasse,’ which may seem plausible: but ‘peccare ante’ = ‘peccasse.’ The sense is rightly given by Heyne: “ita vero satis etiam habere debebant, semel rapuisse feminam, quippe qui ex raptu Helenae ea mala experti sint, ut modo non omne, h. e. totum genus femineum perosi esse debeant: tantum abest ut novum raptum, Laviniae, meditentur.” The qualifying expression ‘modo non’ reminds us of rhetoric rather than of poetry: but it must be set down to the general tone of the speech, which is decidedly oratorical. Wagn. Lectt. Vergg. pp. 352 foll. accounts for ‘modo non’ on the ground that but for such a qualification the Trojans would be condemned to hate not only those whom they might possibly marry but those whom they might not, such as mothers and sisters. He has now however in his 3rd school edition changed his opinion, and takes ‘penitus—perosos’ as an indignant exclamation—‘to think that they should now (‘modo,’ ἄρτι) not abhor the whole race of women!’ But it seems doubtful whether he had fully grasped Heyne's meaning even when he supported it, as in Lectt. Vergg. l. c. he finds a chronological incongruity between the two clauses ‘peccare—satis’ and ‘penitus— perosos,’ not seeing that ‘ante’ does not go with ‘fuisset’ but with ‘peccare.’ Peerlkamp and Ribbeck adopt ‘modo nunc,’ a conj. of Markland's, found also in the Venice edition of 1472, and perhaps supported by a reading mentioned by Pierius, ‘modo nec.’ ‘Fuisset’ then would have its ordinary sense, ‘modo perosos’ being understood as “modo perosi essent;” ‘it would have been enough for them to sin once, had they learnt to detest the race of women now.’ But it is difficult to see what advantage the new reading has over the old. For ‘perosos’ there is a strange variant ‘perosus,’ found as a correction in both Med. and fragm. Vat., and originally in Gud., where it is altered into ‘perosum,’ the reading of not a few inferior copies, a change equally meaningless, but more easily accounted for. Whether ‘perosis’ is found anywhere does not appear, as it seems a mistake to attribute it to Gud. Rom. has ‘non modo.’ ‘Penitus perosos’ like “dilectam penitus Iovi” Hor. 1 Od. 21. 4.
 Quibus is connected loosely with what goes before, the antecedent being got from the context. ‘Men who are reassured by the narrow breadth of rampart and trench that keeps them from death.’ As Heyne says, “Ex ira oratio durior.” Comp. Hector's words Il. 8. 174 foll. Γιγνώσκω δ᾽ ὅτι μοι πρόφρων κατένευσε Κρονίων Νίκην καὶ μέγα κῦδος, ἀτὰρ Δαναοῖσί γε πῆμα: Νήπιοι, οἳ ἄρα δὴ τάδε τείχεα μηχανόωντο Ἀβλήχρ᾽, οὐδενόσωρα: τάδ᾽ οὐ μένος ἁμὸν ἐρύξει. ‘Medii’ interposed between us and them, like “medius liquor” Hor. 3 Od. 3. 46. ‘Fiducia valli’ like “generis fiducia” 1. 132, “fiducia mei” 8. 395.
 Fossarum morae like “loricae moras” 10. 485, “clipei mora” 12. 541. Rom. has ‘mora et.’ It is difficult to decide between ‘discrimine parvo’ Med., fragm. Vat. originally, Gud., and ‘discrimina parva,’ fragm. Vat. corrected and apparently two of Ribbeck's cursives, supported also by Pal., which originally had ‘discrimina parvas.’ (Rom. has ‘discrimina parvo,’ and so Pal. corrected.) The former is the more difficult reading, but may have been introduced from 3. 685: the latter is easy and simple. On the whole I have followed Heins. and most recent editors in adopting the latter. With the sense Cerda comp. Juv. 12. 58, “digitis a morte remotus Quattuor aut septem si sit latissima taeda.” Comp. also Aesch. Theb. 762, μεταξὺ δ᾽ ἀλκὰ δἰ ὀλίγου τείνει πύργος ἐν εὔρει.
 Macrob. Sat. 5. 9 comp. Il. 12. 440, ὄρνυσθ᾽, ἱππόδαυοι Τρῶες, ῥήγνυσθε δὲ τεῖχος Ἀργείων, καὶ νηυσὶν ἐνίετε θεσπιδαὲς πῦρ. Wagn. restores ‘quis’ for ‘qui,’ remarking that Virg. does not use ‘qui’ in direct interrogations. ‘Quiscindere,’ the reading of all Ribbeck's MSS., may stand for either. Ribbeck thinks this and the next line out of place, as Turnus ends with bidding his men retire for the night vv. 156 foll., and accordingly puts them after v. 72, changing ‘sed’ into ‘sic’ and retaining ‘qui.’ But the speech in general is an exhortation to attack, in spite of its conclusion, and the inconsistency is not much increased by the presence of the lines here. Virg. throughout it has perhaps thought more of oratorical effect than of dramatic propriety. Serv. strangely connects ‘lecti ferro,’ which he explains by “ad ferrum lecti” or “acie lecti” (can he have been thinking of ἐγχεσίμωρος or ἰόμωρος?). “Bello lecta” occurs 8. 606.
 He disclaims the need of Achilles' armour or of an overwhelming Greek force. “Mille carinae” 2. 198, where the meaning obviously is that the contents of a thousand ships had not prevailed against Troy. To say seriously that he does not want the contents of a thousand ships to resist the contents of fifteen, together with their Arcadian and Etruscan allies, would be absurd; so we must suppose that he simply means to magnify himself at the expense of the Greeks, whom he insinuates to have owed their victory to the divine armour, not to the valour of their great warrior, and to their own numbers. Comp. Il. 2. 119 foll., where Agamemnon insists on the great numerical superiority of the Greeks to the Trojans apart from the allies. Serv. reminds us that Turnus had a sword made by Vulcan, 12. 90.
 Protinus of time, 2. 545 &c. Serv. says strangely “quidam ‘protinus’ bie pro ‘licet’ accipiunt.” Such a mistake could only be possible in an age where critical ability was low and the traditions of the language imperfectly preserved.
 Tenebras probably refers to the secret passage by which, according to one version of the story (see on 2. 165), Diomed and Ulysses reached the citadel to carry off the Palladium: though another version may have stated that the thing was done by night. ‘Inertia,’ “imbellia:” see on v. 55.
 Nearly repeated from 2. 166. It is found in all the MSS.; but recent critics, from the time of Heyne and Bryant, have been all but unanimous in condemning it. The reasons urged against it are that it is tedious and even inappropriate, as there was no citadel or Palladium in the Trojan camp settlement, and that the form ‘Palladii’ would not have been used by Virg. The first is partly answered by Forb. (himself a rejecter of the line), who admits that the mention of the Palladium is as appropriate as the mention of the horse, Turnus' meaning being only that he would not condescend to stratagems like those of the Greeks: while the charge of tediousness may be met, if not rebutted, by the consideration that Virg. is borrowing from himself, and that he is not always successful in such appropriations, any more than when he borrows from others. This will account for the flatness of ‘caesis summae custodibus arcis,’ which in Turnus' mouth merely means, ‘I will have nothing to do with surprising and slaughtering sentinels.’ The other objection is disallowed by Lachm. on Lucr. 5.1006, who pronounces that the earlier poets generally retained the “ii” in the gen. of proper names from the Greek, quoting “Brundisii” Enn. Hedyphagetica v. 4. “Dodecatomorii” Manil. 2. 740, “Sunii” Ter. Eun. 3. 3. 13. Those who would omit the verse apparently understand ‘tenebras et furta’ of the horse, taking ‘furta’ of a stratagem, as in 10. 735., 11. 515. On the whole the balance of considerations seems decidedly in favour of retaining the verse, though some further doubt may be created by the fact that Rom., fragm. Vat. originally and some others, including the original reading of one of Ribbeck's cursives, have for ‘summae’ ‘late’ or ‘latae,’ which, unless a mistake for ‘altae,’ is an almost meaningless variant. The language in general may be suggested by Hector's taunt Il. 8. 500, Ἀλλὰ πρὶν κνέφας ἦλθε, τὸ νῦν ἐσάωσε μάλιστα Ἀργείους καὶ νῆας ἐπὶ ῥηγμῖνι θαλάσσης.
 Cic. Off. 3. 24 has “luce palam in foro saltet.” ‘Igni circumdare muros’ like “moenia cingere flammis” 10. 119, to beset and fire the walls. With the passage generally Gossrau well comp. Hor. 4 Od. 6. 13—20.
 Putent Med., Rom., and apparently most MSS., ‘ferant’ fragm. Vat., Pal., Gud. originally, and some others, including Canon., ‘putent’ in two of Ribbeck's cursives being written over an erasure. We may conclude that both readings are ancient, the concurrence of Med. and Rom. proving that ‘putent’ was not introduced by the former. Intrinsically, ‘putent’ seems the better word, as there was not much opportunity for talking or boasting, which appears to be the sense of ‘ferant.’ Ribbeck however adopts the latter. It is possible that ‘putent,’ as the commoner word, may be an early interpretation of ‘ferant’ (Serv. does not comment on either): but this explanation will not account for all cases of similar varieties of reading, where to an ordinary apprehension the rival words seem to be nearly equally balanced. ‘Differre’ of delaying or putting off is found with an acc. of the person as well as of the thing: see Forc. With the sense generally comp. 11. 288 foll., Hor. 2 Od. 4. 10 foll.
 Heyne comp. generally Il. 8. 502 foll., 529 foll. ‘Nunc adeo’ 11. 314, where, as here, ‘adeo’ seems to emphasize ‘nunc,’ the contrast there being with the past (comp. 11. 302 foll.), here with the future. See on 2. 567. ‘Melior’ i. q. “maior,” as “bona pars” i. q. “magna,” not referring to suitability for fighting. Med. a m. s., Rom., and two of Ribbeck's cursives have ‘diei est.’
 Procurate, a variety for the more usual “curare corpora,” for which see on G. 4. 187. Burm. and Heyne read ‘parati’ from one inferior MS. and most of the copies of Macrob., who quotes this and the preceding line twice, Sat. 5. 9., 7. 1, paralleling it with Il. 2. 381. ‘Parari’ seems rightly explained by Serv. “a me parari sperate, id est, pugnaturos vos scitote, licet hostes muris se teneant.” For ‘parati’ Taubm. quotes a phrase “pransus paratus” (see Gell. 15. 2 and Gronovius' note) to which Virg. might be supposed to refer, were the authority for the reading greater.
[159-175] ‘The Rutulians pass the night in watching and recreation, the Trojans in watching and anxiety.’
 Moenia cingere flammis 10. 119, where, as Peerlkamp remarks, it has a different sense: see on v. 153 above. Here it refers to watch-fires, which they kindle round the Trojan encampment, as the Trojans in Il. 8 ad finem round the camp of the Greeks. Fragm. Vat., Rom., and one of Ribbeck's cursives have ‘flamma.’
 The reference seems still to be to the troops posted round the Trojan camp, as there could be no occasion to protect the city of Latium: so we must suppose ‘servent’ to be used in the sense of “observent.” The passage, as Heyne remarks, is imitated from Il. 9. 85, where the Greeks appoint seven chiefs, each with a hundred men, to watch about their own entrenchments. Med. has ‘Rutulo,’ which Heins. adopted and Heyne retained: but the termination is marked for alteration in the MS. itself, and no other copies countenance it.
 Rom. and one of Ribbeck's cursives in an erasure have ‘secuti,’ doubtless from a recollection of 5. 561.
 Purpurei is the reading of all Ribbeck's MSS. except a correction in Gud., which has ‘purpureis,’ the reading of inferior copies. Virg. doubtless wished to avoid the jingle. Cerda comp. “quibusibat in armis Aureus” v. 279 below. For the red crest comp. v. 50 above, which makes it probable that ‘auro’ refers to the helmet.
 Discurrunt is explained by ‘variant vices,’ they go backwards and forwards to relieve each other, some watching while others are enjoying themselves. ‘Fusi per herbam’ 1. 214 note. The revelry is from the description of the Trojans Il. 8. 545 foll.
 Vertunt crateras aenos is from Enn., according to Serv. Heyne explains it of tilting the craters into the cups: but it seems more likely that the craters themselves were used as drinking cups, as in Il. 8. 232 we have πίνοντες κρητῆρας ἐπιστεφέας οἴνοιο, unless this is to be understood loosely.