Publius Vergilius Maro is the Latin name of the author of the Aeneid. This is generally rendered as "Vergil" in English. Some centuries after the author's death in 19BCE, by some accounts, the term "virga" (meaning branch or something made from a branch such as a broom or a magic wand) became associated with the author - he was seen as a wizard of sorts by readers in the Middle Ages. From this came the variant spelling "Virgil." Both spellings are in use today. Though I did not continue an academic career in Classical literature, I do hold an Ivy League undergraduate degree in Greek & Latin literature, so I felt confident in using "Vergil" as the name of the author of the Aeneid or, while we are at it, Aeneis (the original title has a Greek format to it - Aeneidos being the genetive form from which we dervie the English form and which is often used as the title in some Latin versions.)
I am curious as to just what stimulated such vitriol in the comment.
That said, I am curious about other aspects of the comment, especially the seeming sarcasm over proper grammar and theories. I would remind the commentor that these are musings that may or may not lead to research work; they are not and are not intended to be read as if they are fully edited and peer-reviewed pieces. I would ask just which bits of grammar were so offensive; just which musings or assertions so theoretically vexing.
Finally, I do not think that my phrasing about being stricken by aspects of the writing warrants the interpretation proposed in the comment. One can have a reaction to a new idea (caused by some external stimulus) that is so exciting as to cause a physical reaction (rise in pulse rate, e.g.) or at least a raised sense of mental engagement with an idea or set of ideas.
Would not a conversation on the points of contention been a more satisfactory form of engagement?