With these outstanding changes, Kotlyarevsky with good-natured fun and real pathos makes Aeneas and his Kozak followers proceed through the Latin story. They get uproariously drunk at Dido’s court. Aeneas deserts Dido. They conduct the games in Sicily in the Kozak manner, even to the scene where old Entellus, the former champion, is drunk in a ditch and cannot be roused to meet the young challenger until he is promised sufficient liquor, quite like the legends of Ilya of Murom in the old byliny. The Kozaks revel and fight as they did once in the Sich, they are loyal to one another and finally when they do make their way to Italy, they learn Latin out of the same grammar that was taught in the Ukrainian schools of the day and they make their petition to Latinus in a grotesque mixture of tongues which may be well translated: Aeneas, noster magnus panus And Troianorum mighty prince A-roaming o’er the sea, a gypsy, Ad te, O rex, has sent us nunc. Rogamus, domine Latine, Do not destroy our wretched heads. Permitte us to live among you E’en for pecuniam or gratis. We all will thank you always satis For your beneficentia. (IV, 46) Likewise in places where Vergil indulges in descriptions as in the catalogue of the Italian clans, Kotlyarevsky gives us long passages of information as to the Kozak leaders of the past and he describes the various Kozak regiments as taking part in the campaign. He does not mention either Khmelnitsky or Mazepa. Both were perhaps dangerous figures to introduce, for the one had brought the Kozaks into connection with Russia and the other was in bad odor with the Russian government. It was therefore more convenient and more in line with the policy of Kotlyarevsky to omit any clear mention of either. The author showed however an amazing grasp of the manners and customs of the Ukrainians of his day. Without idealizing or degrading them, he pictures the life of Aeneas and his followers exactly as the Kozaks lived, even to their petty virtues and vices. There is almost an atmosphere of folklore study about certain passages and it testifies to Kotlyarevsky’s powers of observation and selection that he was able to do this so successfully. The _Eneida_ was a revelation to the Ukrainians. Here was a poem in the common vernacular, glorifying the Kozaks. It was very different from the attitude of the historians, whether they were pro- or anti-Kozak, and was nearer in spirit to the popular songs of the day. But what a difference! For in the _Eneida_ Kotlyarevsky had dared to be himself, to play with his material and to break out a new road.