pared by us in concert for publication: those on the first five Eclogues are based on some which he composed by himself: and many passages in both poems have since been discussed between us. The editorial responsibility is however entirely mine, and I have exercised it freely with reference to the materials which he allowed me to use, adding, altering, and suppressing, as I deemed best. One important remark, affecting the interpretation of the first Eclogue, I have thought it right to assign distinctly to him, as it appears to me both new and valuable. On the other hand I fear it is not impossible that the notes may betray, here and there, even after the present revision, a trace of that inconsistency which is perhaps almost inseparable from a divided editorship, though it is also conceivable that indications of this kind may have arisen from changes in my own opinion, such as it is no less natural to expect in the course of a protracted work.

Even a transient glance at the contents of the present volume will show that the production of it must necessarily have been a work of time. It does not profess, indeed, any more than the other editions of the Bibliotheca Classica, to be a work for the learned, the result of elaborate original research. No manuscripts have been consulted in the formation of the text: a very large portion of the notes may be found in the commentaries of others. But it is no light thing to comment on nearly 3000 lines, line by line, even where the materials of the note are taken from other sources. Much too depends on the style in which a commentary is written. I have in general studied brevity of expression, abridging quotations which might have been given in extenso, and indicating a thought which might easily have been pursued. A very few lines of type will often represent the employment of an hour. Before I knew the actual nature of the work, I fancied that an edition of the whole of Virgil, such as I proposed, might be completed in two or three years: I can now only wonder at the inexperience which suggested the thought.

In writing my notes I have had no one class of readers exclusively in view, but have aimed at producing a commentary which should contain such information as is suited to the various wants of a somewhat mixed body-those who constitute the

2 See p. 11.

highest classes in the larger schools, and those who read for classical honours at the Universities. As a general rule, however, I have said nothing where I did not think it possible that a doubt might arise in the mind of a fairly instructed reader. My custom has been to take every line as it came before me, and ask myself whether I thoroughly understood it; and this process has often led me to entertain difficulties which had not previously made themselves felt. Some of these I have come to think of importance: others a little consideration has sufficed to dispel: but it seemed worth while to endeavour to preclude the latter no less than the former. I have not in general desired to furnish information of a kind which is to be found in Lexicons, or in the well-known Dictionaries of Antiquities, Biography and Mythology, and Geography. With regard to the last-named works, however, my practice has not been very consistent: I have frequently referred the reader to them, and as frequently left him to refer himself. I trust, however, that this awkwardness has not been productive of any serious inconvenience.

The essays which I have ventured to introduce in different parts of the volume are intended in one way or another to illustrate the literary peculiarities of Virgil's poems. Possibly they may be found interesting on their own account, as, with the signal exception of Colonel Mure's unfinished work, to which I may now add Professor Sellar's book on the Roman Poets of the Republic, our language is singularly deficient in sketches of the history of classical literature. Here, as elsewhere, I have written rather for learners than for scholars: I have sought to popularize what already exists in less accessible forms. Two of these essays, those introductory to the Eclogues and the Georgics, were substantially delivered as public lectures before the University: the remaining two, which are of much slighter texture, were written for the present publication.

With regard to the text, I may refer generally to what I have said in the Preface to my second volume. The publication of Ribbeck's apparatus criticus has made a new recension necessary, though here as well as in the Aeneid I have accepted his facts

3 Written before the appearance of Dr. Wagner's translation of Teuffel's Geschichte der Römischen Litteratur, and Mr. Cruttwell's more recent manual.

without holding myself bound by his judgment. The more important varieties I have mentioned in the notes, particularizing the MSS. in which they are found, and noticing even transcriptural errors when they seemed to suggest any critical considerations. Doubtless the text of Virgil cannot yet be said to be fixed: but it is satisfactory to know that so much has been added to our materials for fixing it. Meantime it may be asserted even with more confidence than before that there are few writers whose text is in so satisfactory a state as Virgil's. Variations there are, and probably will continue to be, as some of the most eminent of the ancient grammarians appear to have made independent recensions, each of which would naturally have distinctive peculiarities. But the choice generally lies between words, each of which has considerable probability, external and internal; and though the critic may not always feel sure that he has before him the actual hand of Virgil, he is not left to the hopeless confusion which unskilful transcribers have introduced into the text of other authors. The more important MSS., though not always accurate representatives even of their own recension, supply each other's defects: the less important may in general be passed over entirely. The need of critical conjecture is almost wholly removed. Even the two instances where, in the first edition, following other editors, I had disturbed the text without any external authority, have now disappeared. In Eclogue 7, v. 54, Lachmann and Madvig have shown "quaeque" to be the true reading: in Eclogue 8, though there is no authority for leaving out the burden contained in v. 76, there is authority for introducing a corresponding burden after v. 28, which I have accordingly done.

In the notes I have availed myself largely of the labours of my predecessors. Servius and Philargyrius I have used constantly, though it is likely that some few of their remarks may have escaped me, as I have studied them chiefly in the commentary attached to the Delphin and Variorum Classics, where they seem not to have been reprinted quite entire. The same collection has supplied me with many of the notes of Germanus, Cerda, Taubmann, Emmenessius, and others. This field had been partially Several additional notes have been quoted from them in the Fourth Edition -H. N.

1

reaped by Heyne; but I found that he had left me something to glean. From Cerda in particular, whose own complete commentary I have sometimes consulted, I have derived some additional parallel passages, though he is fond of accumulating matter which is not strictly relevant. Trapp's notes, appended to his translation, are not without good sense, but do not show much learning or poetical feeling. Martyn's commentary has been constantly at my side, and has been of some use, independently of its botanical and agricultural information, as containing the opinions of others, particularly Catrou, whose own edition I have never seen. Heyne's explanatory notes deserve much of the praise they have received, but they are deficient in minute attention to the author's language. I have used Voss's commentary on the Eclogues (in Reinhardt's Latin translation) with advantage, frequently availing myself of his research even where I could not accept his views; his commentary on the Georgics I have unfortunately been unable to procure, though I have no reason to believe that it is an uncommon book. The explanatory notes of Wagner are few, though more numerous than those of Spohn and Wunderlich, which he has incorporated in his edition of Heyne; they are however generally valuable, while his "Quaestiones Virgilianae" exhibit very great care and diligence. The merits of Forbiger's edition are chiefly those of a compilation; but it contains a large amount of exegetical matter; it leaves few difficulties unnoticed; and its references to grammars and other works where points of language are examined deserve much commendation. I have made great use of it, levying on it the same kind of contributions which it has levied on others. To Mr. Keightley I owe a more personal acknowledgment, as he was kind enough, when I was preparing my first edition, to place in my hands a copy of his Notes on the Eclogues and Georgics, containing many MS. corrections and additions, and also to favour me with his opinion on certain points by letter. His book has been chiefly useful to me in relation to agricultural and botanical matters, but I have derived considerable advantage from his independent judgment as a general commentator, though frequently compelled to differ from him on questions of scholarship. From Ladewig's German school commentary (I speak of the first edition only) I

have gained something, though his novelties of interpretation seem to me frequently untrue, and his conjectural deviations from the received text unfortunate. I have consulted also the school editions by Mr. A. H. Bryce and Mr. C. D. Yonge, and parts of a critique by Ameis on passages in Wagner's and Ladewig's editions of the Eclogues and Georgics, under the title of "Spicilegium explicationum Vergilianarum." I am sorry that I am obliged to go to press before the appearance of Dr. Kennedy's promised school edition.

I have carefully studied the valuable review of the first edition of this volume by my friend Mr. Munro, in the Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, frequently adopting his views, and never rejecting them without full consideration. And I have introduced not a few suggestions from a body of remarks kindly forwarded to me by Mr. Blackburn, Rector of Selham in Sussex, who speaks not only as a student of Virgil, but as a man accustomed to country pursuits. While, however, I trust that from these and other sources various improvements will be discovered in the explanatory part of the present edition, it is right to say that it will be found to be substantially unaltered.

As subsidiary works, bearing on the subject of the Georgics, I have consulted Dickson's "Husbandry of the Ancients," and Dr. Daubeny's recently published "Lectures on Roman Husbandry;" but my knowledge has, I fear, not been always sufficient to enable me to use them with effect. The grammar to which I have most frequently referred is Madvig's; the lexicon, Forcellini's.

The editions of the classics to which I have referred have been in general the best and latest, when my library happened to contain them. For the Greek dramatists I have followed Dindorf; for Pindar, Bergk or Schneidewin; for Hesiod, commonly Göttling; for Dion Cassius, Reimarus; for Xenophon and Appian, the editions published in Teubner's series. For Plautus, I have followed those editions where the lines are numbered by Acts and Scenes, not as preferring that practice, which appears not to have been sanctioned by antiquity, but because neither Ritschl nor Fleckeisen, who adopt the other plan, has completed his edition; for Propertius, Paley; for Lucretius, Lachmann; for the other Latin