grammar, the nominative being of the same class as pubēs pubĕris, Cerēs Cereris: while in 11. 69 Virgil writes languentis hyacinthi in imitation of a Greek rhythm. (See Excursus on Book 12.) GEORG. 1. 316 foll. "Omnia ventorum concurrere proelia vidi, Quae gravidam late segetem ab radicibus imis Ferret hiemps culmumque levem stipulasque volantis." For ita Madvig would read ut, objecting that ita implies a comparison. But ita may quite as well be taken as meaning with such violence: compare (with Conington) Lucretius 1. 275, "ita perfurit acri Cum fremitu saevitque minaci murmure pontus:" 286, "ita magno turbidus imbri Molibus incurrens validis cum viribus amnis Dat sonitu magno stragem." That Virgil wrote ita it seems impossible to doubt on a comparison of these lines of Lucretius: with such minuteness does he constantly reproduce the ipsissima verba of his great predecessor. GEORG. 2. 266 foll. "Ante locum similem exquirunt, ubi prima paretur Arboribus seges et quo mox digesta feratur, Mutatam ignorent subito ne semina matrem." For et Madvig would read ei, which he would scan as a monosyllable (see Lachmann on Lucretius, p. 152). There seems no objection to an alteration which would completely clear up the sense, except that possibly Virgil might be more sensitive about the scansion of ei as a monosyllable than Lucretius, Catullus, or Manilius. GEORG. 3. 391. "Munere sic niveo lanae, si credere dignum est, In nemora alta vocans: nec tu aspernata vocantem." For sic Madvig would read sub, remarking "adverbium sic nihil omnino habet quo referatur aut quod significet, quoniam ante tantum de cura lanae albae sine maculis servandae agitur." I cannot agree with this criticism: the transition expressed by sic is poetical if not logical: "reject a ram with a dark tongue, however white his fleece : it was thus that Luna was deceived by Pan." GEORG. 4. 39. "Certatim tenuia cera Spiramenta linunt, fucoque et floribus oras Madvig's correction suco for fuco seems as simple a correction as is possible, supposing correction to be needed. But is it impossible that Virgil used fucus (= dye or pigment) for what Pliny (11. 5) calls cera ex floribus ? AEN. 1. 453 foll. "Namque sub ingenti lustrat dum singula templo Miratur " &c. For inter se Madvig, following a Berne MS. of the ninth century whose first hand gives intrase, would read intra se: thus obtaining an excellent solution of an unques. tionable difficulty from the same material as that from which Ribbeck elicits his more questionable emendation intrans. Quintilian (10. 6. 2., 11. 3. 2) uses the phrases intra se ipsum, semet ipsum, disponere, componere. VOL. III. K k 2. 119 foll. “Volgi quae vox ut venit ad aures, Obstipuere animi, gelidusque per ima cucurrit Ossa tremor, cui fata parent, quem poscat Apollo." For parent Madvig considers it certain that Virgil wrote paret. It appears to me, however, probable that Virgil would have preferred to describe the perplexity of the multitude as twofold: what was their duty, and what were the demands of Apollo. The distinction is descriptive and poetical rather than real: but it is not on this account less Virgilian. Fata then should be taken as accusative after parent: "for whom they are to prepare death." Thus understood, the passage would closely resemble 12. 718 -9,"mussantque iuvencae Quis nemori imperitet, quem tota armenta sequantur.” 3. 340. 'Quem (quae ?) tibi iam Troia." Madvig, reading quae, would place this hemistich after the words "Iliacamque iugis hanc addidit arcem" v. 336. The passage has been sufficiently discussed by Conington in his essay on Ribbeck's Prolegomena. I will only observe here that Madvig omits to mention the reading quem, which, according to good authority, is found in the Medicean, and which if correct shows that the words refer to Ascanius, mentioned in v. 339. In 3. 360 Madvig would read "tripodas Clarii et laurus" for "tripodas, Clarii laurus." 3. 682 foll. "Praecipites metus acer agit quocumque rudentis Contra iussa monent Heleni, Scyllam atque Charybdim Inter utramque viam leti discrimine parvo Ni teneant cursus, certum est dare lintea retro. Ecce autem Boreas angusta ab sede Pelori Missus adest." Here Madvig proposes one of his most ingenious and successful emendations. Aeneas is advised by Helenus (3. 410 foll.) to make for Latium not by the straits of Messana, but by sailing round Sicily. On his reaching the neighbourhood of Aetna, his companions are terrified at the sight of the Cyclopes, and think of nothing but flight ("quocumque rudentes excutere "). Vv.684—6,“contra ”—“ cursus," seem to contain the warning of Helenus that such a course would lead to almost certain destruction But this sense can hardly be pressed out of the words as they stand, "contra iussa monent." To get rid of this difficulty Madvig proposes to read contra ac for contra, taking ni in v. 686 as = ne, and joining ni teneant with iussa monent. The passage would then run as follows: "Contra ac iussa monent Heleni, Scyllam atque Charybdim Ni (ne) teneant cursus, certum est dare lintea retro. "They determine to sail back (i. e. northward), against Helenus' express warning to them not to try the fatal way between Scylla and Charybdis. But a wind blows from the north and frustrates their design." The two emendations in the sixth book, "Pirithoumque et Quo super atra silex" for "Pirithoumque, quo” or quos," ," and "merset" for "mersit" in v. 615 are less important. It may be observed that it would be hazardous to adopt the first until we are quite sure that Virgil was not following some story now lost. With regard to the second, it is difficult to see that merset is an improvement on mersit. In the line "quae forma viros fortunave mersit," forma has usually been taken as forma sceleris : in this case fortuna would refer to the vicissitudes in the life of the guilty on earth. = But Madvig would take forma as forma poenae. What then becomes of fortuna? It is hardly natural to understand it of their lot in the under-world. 8.74. Aeneas addressing the river-god Tiberinus says (according to the MS. tradition), "Quo te cumque lacus, miserantem incommoda nostra, Fonte tenet, quocumque solo pulcherrimus exis." Here Madvig remarks, “Ridicule omnino lacus dicitur fluvium fonte tenere, et quocumque, quasi pluribus eum tenere possit: magis, si fieri potest, ridicule, qui ignotam sibi originem fluvii significat, sic loquitur: quocumque te lacus fonte tenet; nam ex fonte nasci fluvium scit, ex lacu nasci qui scire potest ?" He would therefore read "qui te cumque locus." Now it must be remarked, first, that lacus is the reading acknowledged by Servius: secondly, that Aeneas is not addressing the river-god as a river rising from a spring, but as a deity dwelling in a subterraneous cavern ("Dixit, deinde lacu fluvius se condidit alto, Ima petens," eight lines above the passage under discussion). So in the fourth Georgic (v. 365 foll.) we have the rivers imagined in Platonic fashion as rising from a vast underground recess : "unde pater Tiberinus et unde Aniena fluenta." The ablative "quo fonte" may be taken as local, not instrumental: "near whatever spring thy lake shelters thee:" comp. "secretum Яumine" 8. 610. In the difficult passage 9. 282," tantum fortuna secunda Haud (or aut) adversa cadat,” Madvig would read "aut adversa cadet." "Of myself I am certain: fortune alone. will turn out either favouring or adverse." Is it too much to say that this is to make Euryalus utter a platitude? The passage is satisfactorily dealt with by Conington, who, reading haud, interprets "Let but fortune be prosperous, not adverse." The expression of a feeling of misgiving at the approaching venture is quite in harmony with the spirit of the context. 9, 386 foll. "Nisus abit, iamque imprudens evaserat hostis Madvig would get over the geographical difficulty by reading locis, which he would join with "ut stetit et frustra absentem respexit amicum." I should be more inclined to suppose that Virgil was alluding to some place and name to which we have lost the clue. 10. 185 foll. "Non ego te, Ligurum ductor fortissime bello Crimen amor vestrum formaeque insigne paternae." Here it seems clear that Madvig has fallen into error through not sufficiently attending to Virgilian, and indeed poetic, usage. "Unum poeta promittit se commemoraturum ducem, sed subito duos obiicit prava prorsus orationis forma: nec enim illis non ego te ... transierim potest sic alterius nomen copulative adiungi et . . . Cupavo pro eo quod est nec (aut) te paucis comitate Cupavo." For Cinyra or Cinyre (the MSS. differ as to the end of the word, but agree in the first letter) he proposes sine re: Cupavo poor and with a scanty following." But the "prava prorsus orationis forma" is decidedly Virgilian: compare G. 2. 101-2, "Non ego te, Dis et mensis accepta secundis Transierim, Rhodia et tumidis Bumaste racemis:" and Mr. Munro has reminded me that Catullus in the Phaselus' 66 says seque dedicat tibi, Gemelle agree with Madvig that the Castor et gemelle Castoris." For the rest, I am glad to words "crimen amor vestrum" are an address to Venus and Cupid, and refer to the swan's feathers: "a reproach, Love, to thee and thy mother." (See additional notes.) In 10. 279 Madvig would read viri and punctuate "In manibus Mars: ipse, viri, nunc coniugis esto" &c.: in 10.458 he would alter ausum into ausus. I have nothing to add on these passages to what has been said in the commentary. But on 10. 362 foll. Madvig proposes an almost convincing emendation. The MSS. give "Arcadas, insuetos acies inferre pedestris, Ut vidit Pallas Latio dare terga sequaci, Aspera quis natura loci dimittere quando Quis quando is difficult, if not impossible. Madvig would read aspera aquis: the ground being broken by a torrent. In 10. 479 Madvig objects to "strinxit de corpore Turni" (hasta), and would read "tinxit se corpore." But Persius 2. 65 says "stringere venas Ferventis massae crudo de pulvere." I pass over several less important alterations and come to 11. 495 foll., Virgil's translation of the simile of the horse in Il. 6. 508, "Aut ille in pastus armentaque tendit equarum, Aut adsuetus aquae perfundi flumine noto "Perversum hoc," says Madvig, " prorsusque vitiosum. Nam adsuetus aquae accipi vetat perfundi infinitivus, adsuetus aquae perfundi nihil est: iungenda igitur haec sunt: adsuetus perfundi flumine noto aquae: atqui (ut taceam de flumine aquae) flumine noto avelli ab emicat nequit, quod nec hoc absolute dictum sensum habet et quod equus, lavari solitus, consuetudine flumen notum petit ex eoque deinde emicat. Scribendum est igitur necessario Aut adsuetus aqua perfundi, flumine noto Emicat.'” First, I would remark that flumine aquae is quite unobjectionable, for Lucretius 2. 664 foll. speaks of " equorum duellica proles. . . Uno eodemque sitim sedantes flumine aquai:" secondly, that before altering anything in this passage it is necessary to attend to the passage in Homer which Virgil is translating. Now the line "adsuetus aquae perfundi fumine noto ” is a translation of Homer's εἰωθὼς λούεσθαι ἐϋρρεῖος ποταμοίο, and should therefore not be broken up: “emicat, arrectisque fremit cervicibus" &c. corresponds to κυδιόων, ὑψοῦ δὲ κάρη ἔχει, though the sense and rhythm of κυδιόων are given by luxurians in the next line. Virgil has spoilt the simplicity of the Homeric passage by introducing aut―aut: but the whole structure of the piece seems to show that emicat is not to be taken with flumine, but refers to the original escape of the horse. 12. 731 foll. "At perfidus ensis Frangitur, in medioque ardentem deserit ictu, Ni fuga subsidio subeat." Madvig would punctuate "deserit ictu. Ni fuga subsidio, subeat :" i. e. "he would himself have to undergo the blow, unless flight came to his aid." But the clause, pointed as usual, may, it seems to me, fairly stand. There is no condition implied in deserit the sword is broken and actually deserts him: but flight comes to his aid." So Cicero, Fam. 12. 10. 3, says "praeclare viceramus, nisi . . . Lepidus recepisset Antonium" ad Quintum Fratrem 3. 2, "Probe premitur, nisi noster Pompeius . . . negotium everterit." : H. NETTLESHIP. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON VIRGIL. ECLOGUE 4. 15. "Ille deum vitam accipiet, divisque videbit Pacatumque reget patriis virtutibus orbem." The prophecy is of a king reigning in righteousness, like Saturn according to the myth current in Italy, or Numa; and the commentators refer the words 'deum vitam accipiet' to the return of the golden age, when men according to Hesiod ("Epya v. 112 foll.) ὥστε θεοὶ ἔζωον ἀκηδέα θυμὸν ἔχοντες, Νόσφιν ἄτερ τε πόνων. The words 'divisque videbit' &c. are in like manner referred to that familiar intercourse between gods and men, supposed by the Roman poets (not, be it observed, by Homer1 or Hesiod) to be a characteristic of the golden age. Now, though Virgil's words will bear this plain and obvious meaning, no one has observed, so far as I know, that the poet has not expressed it in at all an ordinary manner. 'Deum vitam accipere' does not seem the most obvious way in which Virgil might have reproduced wσTE Otol Sv: and as, elsewhere, he uses the simple expression fruitur deorum colloquio' for intercourse with the gods, it seems strange that he should have used here, to express the same notion, the less obvious phrase 'divisque videbit Permixtos heroas' &c. This criticism may appear far-fetched, but it should be remembered that Virgil chose his words with extraordinary care, often repeating himself with little or no variation when the language appeared to him to be a perfect expression of his thought, and hardly ever, in important matters, using language which had not, to his mind, if not some cherished association, at least some more or less exquisite justification. I suspect that in this passage, though its first and most obvious reference is to a renewal of the golden age, Virgil is using language tinged by association with the mysteries, Eleusinian or other. 'Vitam accipere,' 'to receive or take to one's self a life,' is a phrase requiring comment: now "accipere sacra" was the regular phrase for being "initiated into mysteries:" see Lampridius, Heliogabalus 7, " Matris etiam deorum sacra accepit," and other passages in Hildebrand's note on Arnobius 5. 19. Then as to deum vita,' this expression might also have been caught from the mysteries: for Plato, Phaedo p. 81, says of the soul, ὥσπερ δὲ λέγεται κατὰ τῶν μεμυημένων, ὡς ἀληθῶς τὸν λοιπὸν χρόνον μετὰ τῶν θεῶν διάγουσα: comp. ib. p. 69, ὁ δὲ κεκαθαρμένος τε καὶ τετελεσμένος ἐκεῖσε ἀφικόμενος μετὰ θεῶν οἰκήσει: passages which seem to show that the idea of a participation in a divine life was popularly associated with the mysteries 2. The words 'divisque videbit' &c. carry out the idea thus started: one of the chief points in the Eleusinia being that statues of gods and heroes were exhibited to the gaze of the initiated (see Themistius quoted by Lobeck, Aglaophamus p. 52). I do not of course suppose Virgil literally to 1 In Od. 7. 201, αἰεὶ γὰρ τὸ πάρος γε θεοὶ φαίνονται ἐναργεῖς κ.τ.λ., Alcinous is evidently speaking of a special familiarity between the gods and the Phacacians. 2 This idea is further illustrated by Plato, Phaedrus p. 250, ὅτε σὺν εὐδαίμονι χορῷ μακαρίαν ὄψιν τε καὶ θεάν, ἑπόμενοι μετὰ μὲν Διὸς ἡμεῖς, ἄλλοι δὲ μετ ̓ ἄλλων θεῶν, εἶδόν τε καὶ ἐτελοῦντο. Theo Smyrnaeus (ap. Lobeck, Aglaophamus p. 89) speaks of To θεοφιλὲς καὶ θεοῖς συνδίαιτον as the privilege of persons initiated into the Eleusinia. |