This chapter moves beyond the figure of the sole ruler into the dynamics of Macedonian and Qin society. Surrounding the figure of the ruler are subordinates and subjects of differing levels of power and authority. Major findings reinforce the nature of the extremely personal Macedonian governmental framework. The comparison of military practice is also revealing of an emphasis on killing greater among the Zhou than Greek armies, as the importance of captives, citizenship, and submission among the Greeks reveals a vastly different understanding of the cultural act of killing than exists among the Zhou. Incentivization is also examined, and the role of political personhood among the Greeks and Macedonians is highlighted as a means by which soldiers are incentivized to action.

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.