[742] Infectum may either be an adj. or a participle. Gossrau understands it in the former sense, making ‘infectum eluitur’ = ‘eluitur ita ut infectum sit.’ But this is hardly Virgilian, and is not sufficiently supported by 12. 242, “foedusque precantur infectum.” On the other hand it is certainly harsh to understand ‘infectum scelus’ as ‘scelus quo quis inficitur;’ but it seems not unlike Virg., and is perhaps justified by such inversions as 4. 477 note. For passive participles in Greek which may be explained on the principle of the cognate acc. see my note on Aesch. Choeph. 806. The force of ‘infici’ is well illustrated by Forb. from Sen. Ep. 59, “Diu in istis vitiis iacuimus: elui difficile est: non enim inquinati sumus, sed infecti.” No other instance is quoted of ‘exuri’ in the sense of being removed by burning (for in Plaut. Rud. 3. 4. 62 and Cic. de Div. 3. 3 the sense or reading seems more than doubtful): but such a use of the compound is abundantly defended from analogy, e. g. ‘eluitur’ which just preceded, and “eblandita illa, non enucleata esse suffragia” Cic. Planc. 4.
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.