“Exsultant vada” 3. 557. The MSS. are divided between ‘aquai’ (Med., Gud. originally?) and ‘aquae vis’ (fragm. Vat., Rom., Gud. corrected). Serv. apparently says that Virg. wrote ‘aquae vis,’ and Tucca and Varius introduced the diaeresis: a gloss in the MS. known as the primus Moreti represents Tucca as having introduced ‘aquae vis.’ Both are evidently old readings, and we must decide on internal grounds. ‘Aquae vis’ would involve the trajection of ‘atque,’ which is not in Virg.'s manner (see on E. 6. 38), so that Heins. and later editors seem right in reading ‘aquai,’ and supposing that it was changed to avoid the archaism and perhaps the separation of ‘aquai—amnis.’ The supposed third reading, ‘aquae amnis,’ seems to rest on a corruption in the text of Serv. For the position of ‘fumidus’ comp. that of “spumeus” 2. 419., 11. 626. ‘Fumidus’ in fact goes closely with ‘furit.’
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.