Still later, in his two comedies, Kotlyarevsky gave examples of the drama in the vernacular Ukrainian, and in both he drew clear differentiations between the manners and customs of the Ukrainians and those of the Moskals. There is still in these no question of political separation, but the author went back very definitely to the ideas of the older Kievans who had gone to Moscow and St. Petersburg, and emphasized the difference in the psychologies of the two peoples. Whatever may have been the definite purpose of Kotlyarevsky in starting his work, he succeeded in giving the Ukrainians what they had long wanted--a definite modern language, and by doing this he laid a sound basis for a new movement. From the day when he first published the _Eneida_, Ukrainian literature has not lacked for writers. Of course in the beginning various people turned their hand to practicing the new medium for various purposes, but there has been an overwhelming tendency for all who had any special talent to emphasize the hardships of the people and to follow Kotlyarevsky in using their influence on behalf of the people as against the foreign and denationalized landowners. Thus from the very beginning the revived Ukrainian was not burdened with that type of aristocratic idealism that so marked the other Slavonic languages. Opponents of the modern Ukrainian movement have often spoken slurringly of this literary movement, because its early writers did not directly challenge the Russian government and remained merely literary men. It betrays a curious ignorance, for in all of the Slavonic revival the process was exactly the same. The emphasis, whether in Ukraine or among the Czechs or elsewhere, was at first on literary and grammatical points. The very nature of Kotlyarevsky’s work pushed the Ukrainian cause much further in the direction of democracy than was the case in the other languages.