Here is the opening of Venus’ speech to Aeneas when she is disguised as a Tyrian huntress:
- Tum Venus: ‘Haud equidem tali me dignor honore;
- virginibus Tyriis mos est gestare pharetram,
- purpureoque alte suras vincire cothurno.
Venus says that it is the custom for Tyrian maidens to wear high boots–or, more properly, to bind or tie them on. The word-order in 337 perfectly illustrates the sense: the adjective “purpureo” and the noun “cothurno” surround the word for “legs” (“suras”), so that the reader gets a word-picture of her putting the crimson boots on.
A couple of other notes: Venus toys with Aeneas in her deception by picking up his vocabulary. Aeneas believes that the figure before him is divine: namque haud tibi vultus/mortalis, nec vox hominem sonat (327-8). At the beginning of her speech, Venus says that “by no means” (haud) is she worthy of such an honor.
Dido is also assimilated (cruelly, in retrospect) to the disguised goddess. Aeneas addresses Venus as “virgo,” and Venus, Artemis-like, takes up this word and uses it of herself (“virginibus”). Shortly afterwards, Dido is described at the time of her marriage to Sychaeus as “intactam.” But the reader later learns how Venus sports with Dido vis-a-vis marriage to Aeneas. This one who appears to Aeneas as an innocent maiden proves to be anything but that, and the formerly “untouched” Dido becomes the plaything of the goddess of love.
I don’t think Aeneas is really deceived. Even after Venus has told him she is not a goddess, he addresses her as ‘O dea’ (372). He also says that his mother has been showing him the way in his wanderings (382). That’s a barbed remark: in fact, Venus hasn’t lifted a finger to help Aeneas since he left Troy! And it hits home. Venus promptly interrupts him, cutting him off in mid-line (385-6: nec plura querentem passa Venus).
Thanks–yes, I don’t think he is, either: already at 327-8 he indicates that he suspects a divinity is before him.
Glad you agree. But, interestingly, I’ve seen no published commentary that argues for taking ‘matre dea monstrante viam’ at 382 as ironic. People tend to say ‘Oh well, it’s just one of those inconsistencies that Virgil would have tidied up …’.
Perhaps have a look at R.D. Williams’ commentary. In his note on 382, matre dea, he writes (vol. 1, p. 190): “perhaps with a touch of rebuke; the irony of the situation is exploited.”