Some Considerations on the Role of Ivan Kotliarevskyi in the History of the Ukrainian Language

Abstract

This article revisits aspects of the historical-linguistic and, to a lesser extent, dialectological context in which Ivan Kotliarevskyi (1769–1838) worked. As well- known to specialists in the field, the writer’s figure and role occupy a privileged place in the history of the Ukrainian language and literature and, more broadly, in its cultural landscape. His contribution to the formation of modern literary Ukrainian was crucial, particularly from a linguistic and literary point of view.

The language of his magnum opus, namely the Eneida, but also his later works in both prose and verse, is cohesive and well-shaped. It can express precisely and vividly the world of the Cossacks’ epic, as reflected in the cultured framework of the Virgilian epos. However, a careful analysis of the historical-literary and linguistic context in which Kotliarevskyi operated may offer alternative interpretations of his work. One key question concerns the actual role played by the writer in forming the modern Ukrainian literary language.

Kotliarevskyi’s work takes on even greater significance when one considers that, from the second half of the 18th century, Ukrainian literary production — due in part to the linguistic unification efforts carried out by the Russian Empire — became dormant, almost to the point of disappearance. In such a historical-linguistic and literary context, Eneida, which predates the work of Oleksandr Pushkin (1799–1837) by about two decades, assumes epoch-making importance.

The relevance of the present contribution lies in its re-examination of some key aspects of Kotljarevs’kyj’s language, its vernacular basis, as well as the legacy of earlier literary canons that influenced his writing. His work stands as a demarcation between two chronologically close yet formally distant historical-linguistic periods, shaped by broader historical and cultural shifts. Consequently, this study focuses on some nodal historical-linguistic issues relevant to Enejida, while the dialectal specificity of this text will have to be the subject of a separate study.