Well ladies and gentlemen, this podcast within a podcast has finally come to an end: Jeff and Dave, at long last (denique, tandem, demum) have reached the final episode on the Aeneid. We start out by looking at how the end of the Iliad and the end of the Aeneid compare, verge off into some Shakespearean and Miltonian digressions, recite some beautiful Latin poetry, talk about Annie Lennox, and round it all off with a look at interpretive possibilities from a wide range of 20th century scholars. These include: Bowra, Elllingham, Brooks, Lewis, Parry, Putnam, and Commager. Who is correct in their interpretation of the Aeneid? When the ancients said that Vergil's twin purposes were to "rival Homer" and "praise Augustus all the way back to his ancestors", were they correct? Or is the man from Mantua up to something quite different and more subtle? Should we go with the revisionist interpretation – adopting Jeff's maxim "the Romans were wrong"– or side with the traditional school? Pull up your can of Campbell's Soup, make your way to your own Fortress of Solitude, and settle in for a rip-roaring interpretive ride.