'l'oeil autant que double' (Festschrift für Vilhelm Thomsen, p. 131). We know how in Homer ooσe is repeatedly joined with a singular verb, though not so often as with one in the dual or plural. It is a neuter dual; and this use has been held to be parallel with that of the neuter plural with a singular verb; but it is no true parallel. If it were, the use of ooσe with the singular verb would be far more usual than its use with the dual or plural. The dual certainly passes into the plural far oftener than into the singular; and the syntax of ooσe supports this. Our English use of 'to bow the knee' points to the same syntax, as does Marlowe's verse: Than has the white breasts of the Queen of Love (Faust. 1. 1. 132); and when Horace writes: Gaude quod spectant oculi te mille loquentem (Ep. 1. 6. 19), does he mean that only five hundred constitute the audience? If he means a thousand, then oculus must mean to him a pair of eyes. So too in in laxa nixa pedem solea (Prop. 2. 29. 40) we have both pedem and solea singular, but with dual force. We have a picture of this syntax of the pair in: clarum Tyndaridae sidus (Od. 4. 8. 31), representing it as a plural enclosed in a singular; and a similar one in geminique sub ubere nati (Aen. 5. 285), where the dual has passed to the plural in nati, but to the singular in ubere; and when to : includunt caeco lateri (Aen. 2. 19) Servius notes: caeco lateri pro caecis lateribus, he is noting this use of a singular for a plural which is for an old dual. We have the opposite use of a plural, which is an old dual, for a singular in: Atridas Priamumque et saevum ambobus Achillem (Aen. 1. 458), where ambobus can hardly be for three, and the union of Atridas with Priamum points to its use for Agamemnonem. When did Achilles condescend to reproach Menelaus? II DOMITUS POLLUCIS HABENIS VIRGIL in his third Georgic, after a fine description of the horse, begins to illustrate it with examples thus : Talis Amyclaei domitus Pollucis habenis The reader will notice that here we have Pollux in a rôle not usually assigned to him. Horace tells us : Castor gaudet equis, ovo prognatus eodem following Homer's: Κάστορά θ' ἱππόδαμον καὶ πὺξ ἀγαθὸν Πολυδεύκεα (Ιl. 3. 237). Servius's note is: Atqui Castor equorum domitor fuit. Sed fratrem pro fratre posuit poetica licentia, ut quas illi Philomela dapes pro Progne, item revocato a sanguine Teucri pro Dardani; aut certe ideo Pollucem pro Castore posuit, quia ambo licenter et Polluces et Castores vocantur; nam et ludi et templum et stellae Castorum nominantur. The last argument might account for the use of Castor for Pollux, it hardly accounts for that of Pollux for Castor; while his fratrem pro fratre reminds me of the question of our boyhood, 'Who killed Cain?' But we have a way in English of expressing briefly a series of four or five by the first and last. Murray tells me: First and last: all, "one and all"? Is this also Latin idiom? Horace writes: Primosque et extremos metendo Stravit humum sine clade victor. (Od. 4. 14. 31-2.) In the verses: album mutor in alitem Superne, nascunturque leves Per digitos humerosque plumae (Od. 2. 20. 10-12) in digitos humerosque Horace gives a series of four by the first and last; and again in : Caementis licet occupes Tyrrhenum omne tuis et mare Ponticum (Od. 3. 24. 3-4) he indicates the whole system of the Mediterranean seas by its eastern and western extremes. So Catullus in: Unam Septimius misellus Acmen Mavult quam Syrias Britanniasque (45. 21-2) signifies in like fashion all the provinces of the Empire. We saw in the last chapter how Horace indicated a pair by one of its members. Here we have two pairs indicated by the first and last of their members. Let us set down the pairs in order, beginning with the horses, as the passage is about horses. Of the two horses, Cyllarus and Xanthus, Cyllarus is the horse of Castor. Valerius Flaccus tells us: Vectorem pavidae Castor dum quaereret Helles Passus Amyclaea pinguescere Cyllaron herba (1. 425-6). So we must order the pairs: Cyllarus-Xanthus-Castor-Pollux. Virgil here uses Cyllarus for the pair Cyllarus-Xanthus, and Pollux for the pair Castor-Pollux, but the secret of this figure was lost by Servius's day, and has not been recovered till now. Acron's note to: hunc equis illum superare pugnis nobilem (Od. 1. 12. 26) is: amatorem equorum Castorem dicit ut est Virg.: talis Amyclaei domitus Pollucis habenis Cyllarus. The only way we can account for his use of this verse to prove that Castor, not Pollux, was the amator equorum is to assume that Acron felt that all his readers, like himself, would at once see that Pollucis was here used by metonymy for Castoris. Let us turn to Servius's Procne-Philomela example: Aut ut mutatos Terei narraverit artus, Quas illi Philomela dapes, quae dona pararit, Quo cursu deserta petiverit, et quibus ante Infelix sua tecta super volitaverit alis. (Buc. 6. 78–81.) Servius's note is: Philomela dapes : atqui hoc Procne fecit; sed aut abutitur nomine, aut illi imputat propter quam factum est. But in his note to v. 78 we read: Omnes in aves mutati sunt: Tereus in upupam, Itys in fassam, Procne in hirundinem, Philomela in lusciniam. Take his order of the dramatis personae; Virgil names them here by the first and last, but lest we might not understand that Philomela here is for Procne-Philomela, he appends two descriptions, one of the nightingale's dwelling: quo cursu deserta petiverit (poetic for: quo volatu silvas petiverit) and: quibus ante... alis for that of the swallow. With this specimen of Virgil's art we may compare his description of Romulus in the sixth Aeneid: Viden ut geminae stant vertice cristae? (v. 779) to which Servius's note is: omnino in omnibus hoc egit Romulus, ut cum fratre regnare videretur, ne se reum parricidii indicaret: unde omnia duplicia habuit, quasi cum fratre communia. Unde omnia duplicia habuit. Nowhere does this seem truer of Virgil, or more striking than in the example I follow Servius in citing : Quid loquar aut Scyllam Nisi, quam fama secuta est Ah! timidos nautas canibus lacerasse marinis? (Buc. 6. 74-77.) Here we have the exploits of Scylla, the daughter of Phorcus, apparently attributed to Scylla, the daughter of Nisus. We can again construct the figure: Scylla-Scylla-Phorci-Nisi, but it differs from the last example in that none of the description given fits Scylla Nisi. It looks to me like a very strong case of åπроσdóкηтoν; we can hardly assume a blunder on the part of Virgil, who had already set forth at great length in the Ciris the crime of the daughter of Nisus, and in Geo. I. 406-9, repeats the last four verses of that poem. What he seems to mean is that Silenus told the tale of both Scyllas, but he specifies only the doings of the Scylla whose story he had not already told. But Propertius (4. 4. 39-40) confuses the two Scyllas, as Virgil seems to do here. Easier to deal with is Servius's question (ad Aen. 1. 235), why Virgil always calls Dido Sidonia Dido, though she was from Tyre, not Sidon, and has no direct connexion with Sidon. Of course there was the indirect connexion, in that Tyre came from Sidon; it was settled by the Sidonians. This we could state in our fourfold form : SidoniaTyros-Tyria-Dido; by using the more remote epithet got by this figure Virgil calls forth in his reader's mind the origin both of Dido and of Tyre; and this is evidently one of the constant aims of poetic diction. The aim of prose is to state with all possible clearness and elegance the fact you wish to narrate, that of poetry to call forth in your narration by suggestion all the facts associated with the fact in question; and hence the use of a figure like hypallage. To turn now to the remaining example cited by Servius, where Virgil seems to have gone wrong in his mythology: Certe hinc Romanos olim volventibus annis, Servius's note is: Teucrum pro Dardano posuit: Dardanus enim de Italia profectus est, Teucer de Creta: quia solent poetae nomina de vicinis provinciis vel personis usurpare. But Italia and Creta are hardly neighbouring states like Tyre and Sidon; and one is rather led to think of the confusion between Teucer and Dardanus in the mind of Anchises, that led to the settlement of the Aeneadae in Crete. But our fourfold arrangement gives Romani-Cretenses-Dardanus Teucer; and Virgil's use of Romani and Teucer here may be another. use of this figure. But Servius's note to revocato here leads further: dicendo revocato, ostendit Italiam, unde Dardanus fuerat. But by naming Teucer instead of Dardanus he straightway contradicts this; for how can the descendants of Teucer be called back to a country from which Teucer did not come? May not Virgil intend us to take re- in another sense? Brugmann relates red-, the older form, to vret, which contains vr, a reduced form of the root ver that is found in vermis' the wriggler', and in verto. Re- has primarily to do with turning back or repeating an action. But it is often used to emphasize a notion of iteration already expressed in the verb as in renovo, constantly in use for novo, 'I renew'. So in: Sic pater Aeneas intentis omnibus unus Fata renarrabat divum cursusque docebat (Aen. 3. 716-17) renarrabat is simply: dictis iterata narrabat. In: Vergilium finibus Atticis reddas incolumem precor (Od. 1. 3. 6–7) Virgil is not returning to Attica, but Attica is his proper and purposed destination. Most interesting here is recipere, the correlative of reddere, which is in use throughout Latin letters from Plautus down, not only for to take back', but also for 'to take as one's own'. It is well distinguished from accipio in: (Peneus) accipit amnem Horcum, nec recipit, sed olei modo super natantem brevi spatio portatum abdicat, poenales aquas dirisque genitas argenteis suis misceri recusans (Plin. 4.8 (15). 31). So in: Dissolve frigus ligna super foco large reponens (Hor. Od .1. 9. 6-7), reponens seems to convey the idea that the hearth in winter is the proper place for the firewood; just as the right place for a book which I take down from my friend's shelves is the place from which I took it. In Aen. 1. 235, then, Virgil by substituting Teucri for Dardani indicates to his thoughtful reader that revocato is not to be taken here in its usual sense of 'called back', for Teucer had never been in Italy. The word revocato suggests to the reader that. Dardanus the founder of the city of Troy was from Italy, and so it was natural that on the fall of Troy the Trojans should return to Italy, their old home. He reads on, and is surprised to find Teucer, and not Dardanus, connected with revocato; and his surprise at this serves to impress more strongly on his mind the idea which Virgil tries to convey throughout the Aeneid, that this return to Italy is a right and due recall, a recall by the gods. We have here one of the many cases, which call for |