Much difficulty has been made about ‘tamen,’ which is really one of the most pathetic touches in Virg. It refers to a suppressed thought, as if he had said “perituri quidem, multis tamen,” &c. Some, as Heyne, have thought of emending the line; others, as Peerlkamp and Dietsch, of omitting the obnoxious words and combining vv. 315, 316 into one: while those who defend the text as it stands press, with Serv., the sense of ‘inimica,’ as if the meaning were that their plunder of the camp led to their ruin, a view which, though far more tolerable than the others which have been proposed, would still in its degree injure the passage. The words of Serv. however, “cum dolore dictum est ‘inimica,’” contrast favourably with those of later crities, who talk of “inpedita sententia,” or even propose “loco tabem eximere desectis verbis.” With the sense generally comp. 10. 509, “Cum tamen ingentis Rutulorum linquis acervos.” ‘Multis futuri exitio’ like “Exitio est avidum mare nautis” Hor. 1 Od. 28. 18. For ‘ante’ see note on 12. 680.
 Somno vinoque fusa like “somno vinoque soluti” above v. 236. ‘Passim’ as in 2. 364, in its original sense, dispersedly. ‘Vino somnoque,’ the order before Heins., is found in none of Ribbeck's MSS. Rom. and one of Ribbeck's cursives have ‘per umbram,’ an obvious error.
 Arrectos litore, set up on the shore, the pole being turned up, the body of the car down, as Heyne explains it, comparing Stat. Theb. 3. 414. Virg. may have thought partly of Il. 10. 473 foll., partly of ib. 505.
 Vina, cups or casks, “vasa vini” (Serv.) and “relliquiae vini in poculis” (Taubm.) both being included. With Serv.'s interpretation Heyne comp. Val. F. 3. 609, “conprensa trahentem Vina manu,” where Burm. quotes this passage. Taubm.'s other suggestion, “vomitu regurgitata vina,” is hardly to be entertained. ‘Sic ore locutus’ 1. 161 &c.
 Audendum dextra is from Il. 10. 479, ἀλλ᾽ ἄγε δή, πρόφερε κρατερὸν μένος: οὐδέ τί σε χρὴ Ἑστάμεναι μέλεον σν̀ν τεύχεσιν. With ‘ipsa vocat res’ comp. Hor. 2 S. 1. 17, “cum res ipsa feret,” Enn. A. 13. fr. 3, “Quo res sapsa loco sese ostentatque iubetque.”
 Consule i. q. “cura,” take measures. Comp. such expressions as “male de aliquo consulere.” Virg. may have thought of Il. 10. 481, μελήσουσιν δ᾽ ἐμοὶ ἵπποι, though the resemblance does not extend beyond the verb. ‘Longe:’ comp. 7. 486, “late custodia credita campi.”
 Vasta dabo i.q. ‘vastabo,’ itself the reading of Gud. corrected, another of Ribbeck's cursives, and some others. So “defensum dabit” 12. 437. The expression is common in the comic writers, e. g. Ter. Heaut. 5. 1. 78, “si vivo, adeo exornatum dabo, Adeo depexum ut dum vivat meminerit semper mei.” Comp. Gk. τιθέναι, and see Munro on Lucr. 4.41. ‘Haec’ is used generally of what Nisus sees about him. ‘Lato te limite ducam,’ I will give you a broad path to follow me in. “Latum limitem agit ferro” 10. 513. Gud. originally had ‘limine.’
 Vocem premere Ov. M. 9. 764, Phaedrus 1. 11. 12, cited by Gossrau and Cerda, of ceasing from utterance, like “presso ore” 6. 155. Heyne and Forb. prefer Serv.'s other interpretation, making ‘vocemque premit’ i.q. “submissa voce:” but the absence of authority seems against this. We are intended to understand that Nisus speaks briefly, and is silent as soon as he can be: comp. v. 353, “breviter cum talia Nisus.” ‘Superbum’ is explained by what follows in v. 325.
 ‘Rhamnes’ is chosen as a name connected with old Rome. “Adgressi ferro” 2. 463. ‘Tapetibus altis,’ rugs heaped up by way of a couch, or perhaps spread on a high couch. Cerda comp. Stat. Theb. 2. 91, “Fuderat Assyriis exstructa tapetibus alto Membra toro,” obviously an imitation of Virg.
 “Inperat exstructos frangere nona toros” Martial 4. 8. 6. The participle is here transferred, “notissima hypallage Vergiliana,” as Cerda says, from the couch to the man. “‘Toto proflabat pectore somnum’ periphrasis est, ne verbo humili stertentem dicat,” Serv. We may perhaps comp. “pectore noctem accipit” 4. 530, where there may be a notion of the quiet breathing of sleep. Diomed kills Rhesus ἀσθμαίνοντα, Il. 10. 496.
 “Iacentes sic temere” Hor. 2 Od. 11. 14. For ‘tela’ Rom. has ‘lora’ from v. 318, where some copies give ‘tela.’ The soldiers of Rhesus on the contrary sleep with their arms regularly piled, εὖ κατὰ κόσμον, Τριστοιχί, Il. 10. 471 foll.
 Schrader conj. ‘Remum,’ which is found in one inferior MS. and approved by Heyne, Remus being thus made the armour-bearer of Rhamnes. But it is in accordance with Virg.'s love of variety to mention the armour-bearer first and then the master; nor is there anything strange, as Peerlkamp thinks, in representing Remus and his servants as lying near Rhamnes. Here it is doubtful whether the ‘armiger’ and ‘auriga’ are different persons, or, as they might be (comp. 2. 467., 6. 485), the same. In Il. 10. 504 the arms of Rhesus lie in his car. ‘Premit’ = “opprimit.” The sense is clear, though no parallel instance has been quoted: 2. 530., 8. 249 are different. ‘Sub ipsis equis’ again contrasts with the arrangement in the camp of Rhesus Il. 10. 473 foll.
 The arteries of the neck spout blood with a gurgling sound. Comp. Od. 22. 18, Soph. Aj. 1390. Virg. may have thought of Il. 10. 521, ἄνδρας τ᾽ ἀσπαίροντας ἐν ἀργαλέῃσι φονῇσιν. Serv. mentions a doubt whether ‘atro’ goes with ‘sanguine’ or with ‘cruore:’ but the epithet would be weak at the end of a clause, and ‘cruor’ is more naturally called ‘ater’ than ‘sanguis.’ ‘Atro—madent’ from Il. 10. 484, ἐρυθαίνετο δ᾽ αἵματι γαῖα.
 Terra torique is hardly a hendiadys, as Forb. thinks; but to take ‘tori’ of an actual couch does not make it probable, as Gossrau contends after Peerlkamp, that Rhamnes is spoken of, as Remus may well have had a bed too. ‘Nee non’ suggests a verb, to be supplied from the context.
 ‘Sarranum,’ which Heins. and Heyne prefer, is found in none of Ribbeck's MSS. To suppose with Heins. that Virg. would avoid the use of an honoured Roman name is as gratuitous as to fancy with Wagn. that he may have intended to glance at an Atilius whom he attacks in the 3rd and 4th of the Catalecta, if they are his. For the name see on 6. 844.
 “‘Deo’ vel vino, vel somno” Serv. Modern commentators, after Donatus, prefer the former, Emm. the latter: comp. Stat. Theb. 2. 76, “Serta inter vacuosque mero crateras anhelum Proflabant sub luce deum,” evidently an imitation of this passage and v. 326. Looking at Virg. alone, we should decide for the former, as to mention sleep as a god here would be too ambitious. As might be expected, two MSS. have ‘vinctus,’ which Wakef. prefers. Possibly it may suit ‘membra’ better: but ‘victus’ is more appropriate to ‘deo.’ ‘Protinus’ onward, as in E. 1. 13, here however referring to time. Probably it should be constructed both with ‘aequasset’ and ‘tulisset:’ had he gone on so as to make the game as long as the night. &c.
 With ‘aequasset nocti ludum’ Gossrau comp. Sil. 7. 340, “somno noctes aequare,” with ‘in lucemque tulisset,’ Hor. 3 Od. 8. 15, “vigiles lucernas Perfer in lucem.” ‘In lucemque’ like “in caeloque” Lucr. 5.1188.
 From Il. 10. 485 foll. Here the simile has no apodosis, unless we are to extract one from the verb implied in v. 334: but the reference to Nisus is clear. ‘Turbans’ intransitive, 6. 800 note. Serv. says “perturbans ovilia: nam tmesis est.” The word may have been suggested by κλονέωσι, used (actively) in a like simile Il. 15. 324.
 Suadet enim vesana fames is probably from κέλεται δέ ἑ θυμὸς ἀγήνωρ Il. 12. 300, κέλεται δέ ἑ γαστήρ Od. 6. 133, both of them similes from lions. It is repeated 10. 724. ‘Trahere’ is coupled with “rapere” by Sallust and Plautus in the sense of spoiling: see Forc. Here it expresses the action of the lion, dragging the sheep along while he is devouring them. The alliteration ‘mandit—molle—mutum—metu’ is expressive. Virg. probably imitated Il. 16. 355, αἶψα διαρπάζουσιν ἀνάλκιδα θυμὸν ἐχούσας.
 “Muta metu” Lucr. 1.92, comp. by Cerda. The words occur 12. 718, also of cattle. ‘Fremit ore cruento’ 1. 296. Rom., and originally Med. and Pal., have ‘multum,’ a strange agreement in error. Some in Serv.'s time actually connected ‘mutumque metu’ with ‘fremit.’
 ‘In medio,’ lying in his way: as Serv. explains it, he did not go out of his way, like Nisus, to kill the leaders, but took the Rutulians as he found them.
 Ignaros, unconscious because asleep. If ‘Rhoetum’ is right, we must suppose that Virg., in his love of variety, chose first to mention Rhoetus among those who were killed in sleep and then to correct himself. The MSS., though as usual spelling the name in a diversity of ways, present no really different reading.
 Sed is rightly explained by Wagn. as showing why Rhoetus was as easily slaughtered as if he had been asleep; though awake, he was hiding in terror. Heyne makes a difficulty about the size of the ‘crater:’ but we may suppose that Rhoetus coiled himself up, and that after all he was imperfectly hidden. The sentence is inartificially constructed, like a Homeric clause with the nom. changed, e. g. Il. 18. 33, ὁ δ᾽ ἔστενε κυδάλιμον κῆρ.
 Rhoetus was rising when Euryalus was upon him. ‘Multa morte recepit’ is rightly explained by Serv. “Eduxit gladium cum multo cruore,” ‘mors’ being used nearly as Hom. talks of πορφύρεος θάνατος (if πορφύρεος refer to blood). Cerda, following a hint of Serv., and followed by Merrick on Tryphiodorus 378, ingeniously but improbably understands ‘recepit’ of welcoming as if with a banquet. Rhoetus being the object of the verb, and ‘morte recepit’ constructed like “urbe, tecto, mensa, lare reciperet” Livy 26. 25, comparing Il. 5. 238, τόνδε δ᾽ ἐγὼν ἐπιόντα δεδέξομαι ὀξέϊ δουρί. Soph. El. 96, ὃν . . . φοίνιος Ἄρης οὐκ ἐξένισεν. Serv. says Cornutus read ‘multa nocte,’ and doubted whether to take ‘nocte’ literally or as a synonyme for ‘morte.’
 Serv. says that many in his time read ‘purpureum,’ connecting it with the preceding line; and some later critics have wished to do the same. ‘Purpuream animam’ however is a highly poetical expression, after the manner of the Homeric πορφύρεος θάνατος, just cited, and may possibly be translated from Hom. Hymn to Apollo, v. 361, λεῖπε δὲ θυμὸν φοινὸν ἀποπνείουσα, though there it seems more natural to connect φοινόν with ἀποπνείουσα. “Mixtosque in sanguine dentes” 5. 470. Comp. also 3. 632.
 Refert, ἀναφέρει, like “referebat pectore voces” 5. 409. ‘Furto’ might refer to taking spoils; but it seems better understood, with Serv. and the rest of the commentators, as i.q. “nocturno proelio” (see on v. 150). ‘Furto’ with ‘instat,’ not, as Serv. and Donatus perhaps thought, with ‘fervidus.’
 So Diomed is doubting whether to kill more of the Thracians, when Pallas suggests that some of their Trojan allies may awake, Il. 10. 503 foll. ‘Iamque tendebat’ answers to ‘breviter cum talia Nisus,’ ‘ibi’ &c. being parenthetical. ‘Ubi,’ the reading before Wagn., is found only in one of Ribbeck's MSS., a cursive.
 Extremum is explained by ‘deficere:’ the fire was burning low. Gossrau comp. Ov. M. 2. 117, “Cornuaque extremae velut evanescere Lunae.” Euryalus saw that the fire was going out, a proof that the watchers were asleep, and that the horses were grazing, so that he was minded to carry them off, as Wagn. rightly interprets the clause. The trait is of course from Hom., and ‘religatos rite’ may have been suggested by εὖ κατὰ κόσμον Il. 10. 472, though there the horses are not mentioned till the next clause.
 From Il. 10. 251, ἀλλ᾽ ἴομεν: μάλα γὰρ νὺξ ἄνεται, ἐγγύθι δ᾽ ἠώς. comp. by Cerda, where however Ulysses is speaking before they set out. “‘Lux inimica,’ proditrix” Serv. Comp. “saevus Oriens” 5. 739. “Vis inimica propinquat” 12. 150.
 “Cui nunquam exhausti satis est” G. 2. 398. ‘Exhaurire’ is commonly used in a metaphorical sense of endurance, as in 4. 14 &c.; here it is apparently applied to the person taking or receiving the satisfaction of vengeance, ‘exhaurire’ being regarded as a stronger synonyme of “sumere” or “expetere.” To interpret it of the sufferers would suit the ordinary use of the word better, but seems less likely in this context. ‘Via facta per hostis:’ comp. v. 323 above.
 Simul does not mean ‘also,’ but shows that the military furniture was mixed in confusion with that belonging to revelry and sleep. Comp. v. 318.
 Phaleras are probably distinct from ‘cingula,’ as Rhamnes may well have had both, and ‘phalerae’ in their proper sense (see on 5. 310) were familiar to a Roman. In what follows the belt alone seems to be spoken of: in v. 458 Virg., with his usual love of variety, ignores the belt and mentions the ‘phalerae.’ Heyne, who thinks ‘phaleras et cingula’ ἓν διὰ δυοῖν, comp. Sil. 15. 255, where ‘phalerae’ are borne by a warrior on his breast. “Fulserunt cingula bullis” 12. 942. ‘Aurea bullis’ i.q. “aureis bullis,” with golden bosses or studs. Here the ‘cingula’ is probably the sword belt, as in 12. l. c., not the girdle. Virg. may have thought, as Wagn. suggests, of Agamemnon's sword Il. 11. 29, which was studded with gold and had a golden belt, ἐν δέ οἱ ἦλοι Χρύσειοι πάμφαινον . . . χρυσέοισιν ἀορτήρεσσιν ἀρηρός.
 This descent of the belt is studied after Hom.: comp. Il. 2. 102 foll. (Agamemnon's sceptre), ib. 10. 266 foll. (Meriones' helmet).
 Ἀμφιδάμας δὲ Μόλῳ δῶκε ξεινήι_ον εἶναι Il. 10. 269. Here the gift is sent in order to cement a friendship. Virg. apparently uses ‘mittit’ rather than “misit” because of ‘dat’ in the next line. For the present see on v. 267 above. In translating the passage about the sceptre from Il. 2 Pope similarly employs the historie present. For the imperf. subj. in connexion with the historic present see Madv. § 382. obs. 3. “Iungi hospitio” 7. 264. The object of ‘iungeret’ is of course Remulus.
 This line caused great trouble to the early critics, Serv. saying of it “Sane sciendum locum hunc esse unum de XII. (al. XIII.) Vergili sive per naturam obscuris, sive insolubilibus, sive emendandis, sive sic relictis ut a nobis per historiae antiquae ignorantiam liquide non intellegantur.” The difficulties connected with it are stated by Wagn. in his larger edition. It is not clear whether ‘post mortem’ is the death of Remulus or of his grandson, ‘moriens’ being in favour of the former view, the general sense of the latter: we are not told distinctly how Rhamnes acquired the ‘phalerae’ and belt, but are left to infer that he received them as his share of the spoil after a battle in which the grandson of Remulus was killed: ‘bello pugnaque’ are a cumbrous mode of expression in a context which speaks only of the spoils of one man. On the other hand, if the line be omitted, all is plain, the unnamed grandson of Remulus being Rhamnes. This reasoning is strong, and would probably be conclusive in the case of a writer whose text was less well established. As however the line is found in all the MSS. (Med. and another giving ‘pugnamque,’ Rom. and one or two others ‘praedaque,’ perhaps from v. 450) and was read by Serv. and Donatus, it seems best to retain it, adopting Serv.'s suggestion that Virg. left it in the rough. ‘Post mortem’ seems most naturally to refer to the death of Remulus, as Wagn. now takes it in his latest school edition, that of his grandson being implied in the fact that his spoils were taken from him: the name of the grandson, as Serv. says, would naturally be the same as that of the grandfather, and consequently is not given: ‘bello pugnaque’ is a pleonasm like πολέμῳ τε μάχῃ τε, as Heyne remarks. Donatus ap. Serv. takes ‘post mortem’ of the death of Euryalus, which is also the view of Cunningham: and Ribbeck supposes that to have been the meaning of the author of the verse, who added it to explain ‘nequiquam’ in the next line.
 Haec referring to ‘dona’ or ‘cingula.’ Serv. decides for ‘nequiquam aptat’ as against ‘nequiquam fortibus,’ and later commentators agree. ‘Nequiquam fortibus’ however is strongly supported by “fortissima frustra pectora” 2. 348, and is favoured by the order of the words. For ‘humeris fortibus’ see on 4. 11.
[367-445] ‘They are surprised by a party from Latium. Euryalus is surrounded: Nisus attempts to rescue him and kills two of the enemy: their leader kills Euryalus, and is himself killed by Nisus, who falls covered with wounds on his friend's body.’