Toward a better Aeneid

My university had us read Virgil's Aeneid in translation. We were to concentrate on books 2, 4, and 6 of twelve, all in "the Odyssey half". Those are, by coincidence, the same books which Virgil tested out to the Imperial family when he was writing the thing.

There's a legend around that epic as a whole. Virgil was dissatisfied with the text and asked Augustus to burn the draughts he had. Then Virgil caught sick and died. Somehow, those draughts were maintained. Either Augustus had the whole set of galleys, or else Virgil failed to burn what he had (understandable if he was going to revise it).

I remember leafing through books 7-12, the "Iliad half". All I remember of it was that it was a tiresome waste of time. I read books 1, 3, and 5 more closely. Book 1 is bogstandard intro, 3 is where the Odyssey Half goes fanfic, and 5 is Aeneas' character-establishment... 5/12ths into the story.

I expect that whatever changes Virgil was going to make to books 2, 4, and 6 would have been superficial - to tie it all in better with the more drastic changes made elsewhere. Why ruin what you already know to be good. And why upset an Imperial patron.

Books 7-12 would have taken the brunt of the changes. An editor would then target Book 1 for foreshadowing, after overhauling books 7-12. I couldn't tell you how to save book 3. Maybe book 5 was slated for full-on deletion, with an eye to trim the B-Side of the overall epic to five books. But I have a better notion about book 5: replace it. There's room for a saga of Italy before the Trojan landing.

It may even be why Virgil wanted back to Italia, to collect Oscan and Rasnal folklore and legendry (respectively) to write that new book 5. In the 10s BC, those peoples yet lived.