[75] Wagn. considers the repetition of ‘accensa’ as equivalent to a second ‘que’ (“accensa comasque coronamque”), and refers the line to the class of cases noticed on E. 4. 6, where see note: ‘accensa’ would then be coupled as a participle with ‘visa est cremari.’ This seems the best way of taking the passage. The common method is to take ‘accensa’ as “accensa esse visa est,” which is rather clumsy, and involves moreover a tautology, inasmuch as ‘omnem ornatum’ includes ‘comas’ and ‘coronam.’ Jahn proposes to strike out the semicolon after ‘gemmis’ and arrange the words: ‘et, accensa comas, accensa coronam, tum (i. e. “postquam accensa est,” comp. 5. 719) visa est involvi fumida lumine fulvo.’ But it is more after the manner of Virg. to begin a new clause with ‘tum,’ as the last point in a description: see 11. 724, G. 2. 296. Ribbeck considers v. 74 to have been Virg.'s first draught, which he afterwards amplified, intending to retrench the superfluity. It is singular that in descriptions like these (especially in similes) Virg. is apt to leave the reader in doubt about the exact construction intended. ‘Regalis’ probably refers to the tiring and general appearance of the hair, which was worthy of a queen. ‘Insignem gemmis’ proves, as Heyne remarks, that the ‘corona’ is the royal, not the sacrificial crown.