[63] Wagn. seems more successful in his attempt to fix a ceremonial sense in ‘instaurare’ than in the case of ‘reponere’ (see on G. 3. 527), with which he couples it. The account of this peculiar meaning would appear to be that stated recurrence is a notion so inseparably connected with any thing ritual, that recurring celebration comes to be talked of when nothing more than mere celebration is meant. It is nevertheless true that in many of the passages where it is used of observances there is a more distinct propriety in the notion of renewal, as in v. 145 note, 5. 94, where it is explained by “inceptos,” 7. 146., 8. 283, where a second feast is spoken of. Thus Stat. Theb. 2. 88, borrowing the words “instaurare diem” from Virg., applies them to a feast which had been interrupted by a brawl. So in Livy 25. 16, when the sacrifice has been disturbed by a portent, it is said “Id cum haruspicum monitu sacrificium instauraretur.” It would be possible to give it some such reference here, Dido being said as it were to revive the flagging solemnities of the day as it wore on by ordering new sacrifices; but this would be too artificial. It is however countenanced by Donatus, “Saepius hoc faciebat, ut produceret diem, volens diutius habere praesentem quem amabat.” Serv. says, much less plausibly, “quia iam supra (1. 632) sacrificaverat.” Ladewig supposes Dido to order one sacrifice after another, a reference to which he sees in ‘pinguis aras,’ in the hope of obtaining a favourable manifestation, and then, when all fail, to throw the blame on the prophet or priests, v. 65; an exceedingly ingenious view, but one which an attentive consideration of the context will, I think, scarcely warrant. Dido, as the queen, would naturally be at the cost of the public sacrifices, like Clytaemnestra Aesch. Ag. 87 foll. Comp. 1. 632 note.
