The Introduction takes the form of an account of Douglas's aims and methods in translation as stated by himself. One of the predominant features of the Eneados is the amount of expansion, so this subject is introduced in the first chapter, necessarily briefly, because it is a topic which recurs in association with other features throughout the poem and has to be returned to more than once. Another predominant feature is the large number of inaccuracies in Douglas's translation. As surprisingly little attention has been paid to this matter, several chapters have been devoted to the various forms which it takes. The aim of this first part of the thesis is to provide material to disprove the claim that Douglas was an accurate translator, a claim still frequently made. In order that the negative aspects of Douglas's work should not monopolise the study, a number of parallel passages are discussed, where Douglas's version is set out along with that of one of five other poets, spanning the period from the 16th century to the present day, the aim being to draw attention to Douglas's positive poetic skills. Three appendices are added, the last of which takes the form of a collation of the 1501 (Paris) edition of Virgil's Aeneid, which Douglas principally used, with the Oxford Classical Text (1969) This has been included to disprove another statement, to the effect that his apparent inaccuracies disappear when related to the 1501 text. The variations between the two texts, although numerous, are mainly insignificant, and only a very few of Douglas's inaccuracies are to be explained in this way.

The Thesis analyses and evaluates how Gavin Douglas (Eneados, 1513) has refocused Virgil's Aeneid, principally by giving more emphasis to the serial particularity inherent in the story, loosening the narrative structure and involving the reader in its retelling. Chapter I pieces together (from the evidence not merely of what Douglas explicitly says, but of what his words imply) what for him a "text" in general is, and what accordingly it means for a translator or a reader to be engaged with it. This sets the scene for what follows. The next four Chapters look in turn at how he re-expresses important (metaphysical) characteristics of the story. In Chapter II his handling of time is discussed, and compared with Virgil's: the Chapter sets out in detail how Douglas consistently refocuses temporal predicates, foregrounding their disjunctiveness and making them differently felt. In Chapter III spatial position and distance are analysed, and Douglas' way of dealing with space is found to display parallels with his treatment of time: networks are loosened and nodal points are accentuated. In Chapter IV the way in which he presents individuals is compared with Virgil's, and a similar repatterning and shift reveals itself: Douglas provides his persons with firmer boundaries. Chapter V deals with fate, where Douglas encounters special difficulties but maintains his characteristic way of handling the story. The aim of these four Chapters is to characterise formally how Douglas concretises and vivifies the tale of Aeneas, engaging his readers throughout in the retelling. Finally, Chapter VI looks at certain general principles of translation theory (notably connected with the ideas of faithfulness and accuracy) and argues for a way in which Douglas' translation can be fairly experienced by the reader and fairly evaluated as a lively retelling which (albeit distinctive) is fundamentally faithful to Virgil.