Of course there were passages that were entirely unsuited to his purposes. There was nothing in recent Ukrainian history which he could use as Vergil used the destruction of Troy. Even aside from difficulties with the censor there was no possible similarity between the capture of the great city and the surrender of the Sich. None of the older sieges which the Sich had undergone would have fitted into the picture, as the source of the migration, and so Kotlyarevsky merely assumes the fall of the home of Aeneas and goes on with his story. For the same reasons he slurs over those episodes which take place upon the sea and it is in these passages that the work becomes rather a burlesque upon the original poem. In their earlier and happier days, the Kozaks had made many a raid down the Dnieper and across the Black Sea against the Turks but for a couple of centuries their exploits were associated with the land and so Kotlyarevsky could not adapt the scenes at sea with the same skill and wealth of allusion that he could the episodes on land. Yet the great difference lies in the position of the authors. Vergil as the poet laureate of Augustus was describing the events leading up to the foundation of mighty Rome at a time when Rome was the mistress of the world. It was safe and necessary for him to introduce prophecies of Rome’s coming greatness and of the glories that the descendants of Aeneas were to win. Anchises in the underworld could safely predict the coming of all those great men who were to increase the prestige of Rome and the Julian line for centuries to come. Kotlyarevsky, a contemporary of the emigration of the Kozaks, saw their glory in the past. What was to be their future? As he looked at the wretched inhabitants of Ukraine and the suffering Kozaks abroad, he could only hope and that hope had to be indefinite for the Russian sovereign had decided that there would be no more Ukraine and any prophecy of resurrection might be treated as treasonable. Thus the main differences in the treatment can be explained by the different position of the two authors.