The chapter deals with fidelity of content, specifically concepts and register. I first discuss the querelle (‘dispute’) between those who favoured word-for-word translations and those who believed in updating or beautifying the ancient text for their contemporary audience, as captured in the phrase ‘les belles infidèles’, an approach which involves the notion of ‘compensation’. I then ask how translators tackle key concepts in Virgil’s oeuvre, such as the untranslatable pietas of the Aeneid, along with specific challenges that arise from Virgil’s Latin texts, such as puns and the incomplete lines. I investigate how translators attempt to match the various registers of the Eclogues, Georgics and Aeneid, then I consider the lens provided by the theoretical spectrum of domestication and foreignization, with examples including Aeneid translations in Italian, English, Romanian, German, Brazilian Portuguese and Russian, concluding with Chew’s uncategorizable Georgics.

I argue that the most efficacious way of establishing a national literature was through the translation of major, high-prestige, foreign texts, such as Greco-Roman epic poetry: translation of Virgil’s poems has had a significant role in creating and honing literary language in European vernaculars and has sometimes served proto-nationalistic and nationalistic agendas. After analysis of the scope of ‘nationalism’ and its relevance to Virgil, I examine examples of the appropriation of cultural authority through translation of the Aeneid in French translations from the sixteenth century, then in other languages including Russian, Hungarian, Portuguese (in both Portugal and Brazil), Catalan, Katharevousa Greek, Maltese and Welsh, with special discussion of the foundational work of Ukrainian literature. I then discuss cases of translation as a proto-nationalist phenomenon, in Hebrew and Argentinian Spanish, and as a transnational phenomenon, in Esperanto. I conclude by relating translation and nation in both outward-looking and inward-looking modalities and in vertical and horizontal dimensions.

Here I examine the phenomenon of partial as contrasted with complete translations: some translators publish complete translations of the Aeneid and the Eclogues, while others select individual books or poems. Some selections, for example Eclogue 4 and Books 2 and 4 of the Aeneid, are consistently popular, while others wax and wane. My chief focus is on partial translations of the Aeneid, where the ability to select and isolate individual books or passages gave translators great flexibility and the freedom to domesticate the material or to turn it to particular aims. After a glance at the ‘Messianic’ Eclogue (Eclogue 4) and the ‘Aristaeus epyllion’ (from Georgics 4), I analyse some famous and less famous translations of Books 4, 2, 1 and 6. Factors that explain some of these selections include the translator’s self-image, education and circumstances, their aims and ambitions, and their motivations for writing as generated by patronage and the venue of publication.

I consider whether particular translators are situated inside or outside the hegemonic culture of their society. Salient factors include religious affiliation, level of education, class and gender. I offer in-depth analysis of the first translations of the Aeneid into English, down to Dryden, and then two cases from continental Europe, one in French, one in German, where the religious affiliations of translators affect the fate of their translations. Two cases of translations of the Georgics written on the margins of empire (in Tunisia and Singapore) challenge notions of centre and periphery. In the final section, I address the question of gender, noting that there have been remarkably few female translators of Virgil: I consider two sixteenth-century French translators and two early nineteenth-century translators of the Aeneid. Then I turn to modern translations of the Georgics, where women are unusually well represented but often marginalized. I conclude the chapter with discussion of the only female translator of the Eclogues I have identified.

Here I consider ways in which Virgil’s text is supplemented by translators. These supplements can take the form of translating additional material and of adding paratextual, explanatory material. Notable supplements considered include the spurious incipit of the Aeneid, the poems of the Appendix Vergiliana and the Latin supplement to the Aeneid written by Maffeo Vegio in 1428 which provides a happy conclusion to the poem. The paratextual material I consider consists of translator’s prefaces, notes and comments, along with issues raised by the cover, the title page, the dedication and endorsements, the mise-en-page, headings and illustrations, whereby the translator and/or printer attempts to frame and direct the reader’s experience. The presence or absence of the Latin text en face and the kind of annotation supplied raise the question of the intended uses of the translations. The chapter closes with a study of Douglas’ assertion of authorial presence through his paratexts.

I explore the question of equivalences or identifications between Virgil’s characters and events and the translators’ own times. In Part 1, I consider how translators invite readers to make identifications between present-day monarchs and Virgilian figures such as Aeneas and Dido, then how some translators appear to identify with aspects of Aeneas and Meliboeus. In Part 2, I address the phenomenon whereby particular translators and cultures respond to Virgil as if he were addressing them specifically and personally, with examples drawn from Polish and Irish literature. In Part 3, I discuss poet-translators’ self-identification with Virgil himself and the implication that they are writing for their equivalent of Augustus. Finally, I move to the phenomenon of ‘transcreation’ or metempsychosis, whereby the poet-translator claims to channel Virgil, and I conclude with translators’ claims to make Virgil speak their own vernacular, taking Dryden as my case study.

This introductory chapter includes analysis of the earliest versions of Virgil: in eleventh-century Ireland, in the Roman d’Enéas and in Middle High German. It explains how I chose to organize discussion of the translation history of Virgil in the Western tradition. I explain the chronological, geographical and linguistic scope of the book and discuss the relevance of translation theory and reception theory to the project. I account for the organization of the book by considering what it might have been (and is not) as well as what it is; I include summaries of the ten following chapters along with indications of the major and minor translations tackled in each. Because the book is composed of numerous case studies, I close by facing the hermeneutic challenge of how to rise above the case study and by indicating the interpretative gains of this study and ways in which it opens up further avenues for exploration by other scholars.

This chapter assesses the imperial presence of lyric in the form of the textual tradition of the nine canonical poets established by Alexandrian scholars. It reviews the evidence for the circulation of archaic and classical lyric texts among students of literature and readers from the late Hellenistic period onwards. Papyri preserving lyric texts and commentaries, treatises discussing literary and rhetorical education, as well as the diffusion of lyric quotations among Greek prose writers are all surveyed to define the place of lyric poetry in imperial paideia. Compared to mainstream classics, the genre thus emerges as a special, more niche and refined form of reading. The chapter then shows that by the imperial period, the reception of lyric subgenres followed a crystallised system of personas, where each poet activated specific thematic, local, ethical and aesthetic associations. This mental map shaped the reception of lyric poetry by imperial writers who, like Aristides, knew and chose to deploy it.