Extremus and ‘galea ima’ virtually express the same thing by different grammatical forms. Grammatically they would be classed as different parts of the same sentence, requiring no copulative to join them, as they are not strictly speaking co-ordinate. Virg. however has chosen to unite them by ‘que,’ as in 10. 734, “Obvius adversoque occurrit,” an almost exact parallel quoted by Wagn. Q. V. 34. There “obvius” is connected with “occurrit,” but not so closely as “adverso,” which forms part of the grammatical construction: here ‘extremus’ is connected with ‘subsedit,’ but not so closely as ‘galea ima.’ With ‘galea ima subsedit’ comp. the stories of persons throwing clods of earth as their lots into helmets full of water, that the lots might not be shaken out, Soph. Aj. 1285, Apollod. 2. 8. 4. ‘Acestes’ for the lot of Acestes, a very natural identification, common not only in poetical but in familiar English. Burm. and Heyne read ‘subsidit,’ which seems to have no MS. authority, and is intrinsically inferior here.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.