"Si _fatis_, nulla Junonis invidia est. Si Junonis invidiâ
fatigabantur quomodo dicit _acti fatis_? Sed hoc ipsum Junonis
odium fatale est. Agebantur _fatis_ Junonis, i.e. _voluntate_; vel
_fatis_, pro _malis_, ut iii. 182."--SERVIUS.
"Non tam quoniam hoc Junonis odium fatale erat, ut Servius; sed
potius, quoniam hi ipsi Trojanorum, errores fatales
erant."--HEYNE.
Not only these two, but all other commentators and translators, as far
as I know, have wholly mistaken the meaning of this passage, which is
not _that the Trojans were_ jactati, fatigati, or agitati, _harassed, or
driven hither and thither by the fates_, (_actus_ being never used in
the sense assigned to it in such interpretation), but simply that they
were _driven onward, or toward Latium, by the fates_ (acti fatis); while
at the same time they were _driven backward, or from Latium, by Juno_,
(arcebat longe Latio). The result was "multos per annos errabant maria
omnia circum:" words could not more clearly express the opposition of
the forces between which the Trojans were placed; an opposition on which
hangs the whole action of the poem. The _invidia_ of Juno, concerning
which Servius queries, was manifested by her using her utmost exertions
to prevent the Trojans from arriving at the place toward which they were
impelled by the fates, _i.e._ at which it was fated they should arrive.
As "acti fatis" here, so "fato profugus venit," verse 6; "sedes ubi fata
quietas ostendunt," verse 209; "data fata secutus," verse 386; "fata
deum vestras exquirere terras imperiis _egere_ suis" (_Æn._ VII. 239.);
"fatisque vocantia regna" (_Æn._ v. 656.); &c.; through all which
expressions runs the one constant idea of the fates _calling_,
_forcing_, _driving_ (agentia) the Trojans toward Latium.
II. "Sævus ubi Æacidæ telo jacet Hector ubi ingens
Sarpedon."--_Virg. Æn._ I. 103.[1]
Observe how the poet surmounts the obvious difficulty of uniting Hector,
the principal champion of Troy, and Sarpedon, the son of Jove, in one
and the same sentence, without implying a preference for either, without
exalting one at the expense of the other; viz., by counterbalancing, by
an inferior position towards the end of a line, that advantage of
priority of mention, which he must necessarily give to one of them; and
by compensating the other for the disadvantage of being placed second in
order, by the double advantage of first place in a line, and separation
from the rest of the line by a sudden pause.
III. "Ubi tot Simois correpta sub undis
Scuta virum galeasque et fortia corpora volvit."
_Virg. Æn._ I. 104.
"Contendit cum Homero (_Il._ [Greek: m.] 22. _seq._). Potest sane
oratio nimis ornata videri ex Æneæ persona; sed innumeris locis
poetæ cum epici, tum tragici, ac lyrici, sibi indulgent in ornatu,
etiam ubi alios loquentes inducunt."--HEYNE.
[Footnote 1: The numbering of the lines is that of the Delphin edition.]
This stricture, very seasonable in a commentary on Statius or Lucan, is
wholly inapplicable to Virgil; a poet remarkable, above all others, for
his abstinence from gaudy ornament, and singularly careful to adapt the
sentiment to the character and circumstances of the speaker. The words
in the text, or some similar words, were indispensable to give full
expression to the idea of Æneas; very imperfectly understood either by
the annotators, or, with the exception of Caro, by the translators:
_Happy those who died on the plains of Troy, in the sight of their
sires? Oh! that I, too, had perished there by the hand of Tydides, or
been swept away along with so many of my friends by the Simois!_