[577] There is no reason to suppose that Aeneas had any doubt that it was Mercury whom he had seen, as we are expressly told that the Mercury of the dream was in all respects like the real god. The case is even stronger in 9. 22, where Turnus, having first addressed Iris by name, afterwards says, “Sequor omina tanta, Quisquis in arma vocas;” though there, as possibly here, the doubt may be about the god who had sent down the messenger. But it seems to have been usual to throw in a saving clause, from motives of reverence, in case the speaker should have mistaken the god or addressed him by a name unacceptable to him. Serv. says that the pontiffs were accustomed to pray “Iuppiter omnipotens, vel quo alio nomine appellari volueris,” exactly the Ζεὺς ὅστις ποτ᾽ ἐστίν of Aesch. Ag. 160.: comp. 9. 201, and see further Serv. on 2. 351, Gell. 2. 28. Possibly there may be something in another suggestion of Serv. that the doubt is expressed in consequence of the number of gods bearing the same name, e. g. three Mercuries are spoken of. Heyne, who censures the “argutiae” of Serv. and others, can hardly be said to have explained the matter by reminding us that Aeneas only saw the form of Mercury, and had no guarantee for its reality. ‘Iterum’ refers back to ‘iterum instimulat.’ Some MSS. however give ‘inperioque tuo.’ ‘Paremus ovantes’ 3. 189.
This text is part of:
John Conington. P. Vergili Maronis opera. P. Vergili Maronis Opera. The works of Virgil, with a Commentary by John Conington, M.A. Late Corpus Professor of Latin in the University of Oxford. London. Whittaker and Co., Ave Maria Lane. 1876.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.