Scrutiny of character has long been a concern of conventional literary criticism. As a result, the notion of character has come to be ignored or bypassed by critics and theorists who do not want to be conventional. They see the study of characterisation as the haven of connoisseurs. However, characterisation involves a large set of questions which bear on fundamental issues of textual interpretation. The way we attempt to answer common questions about Virgil's characters will determine - or be determined by - the way we read Virgil's corpus in general.

For instance, a preoccupation with characters as 'types' (e.g. as epic or tragic figures) is often indicative of a generic reading of Virgil's poetry. Alternatively, to regard Virgilian characters as 'individuals' is to presuppose that his poems function as forms of representation: simply postulating the 'development' of a character like Aeneas involves an essentialised notion of a person which the Aeneid would then be supposed to portray. Again, appreciation of Virgil's construction of character could equally require a conception of his poems as forms of expression. In characterising Dido or anyone else, the poet is simultaneously characterising or expressing himself. Such a view of character could entail a type of rhetorical criticism of Virgil's poetry.