Translation. Region: Russian Federation –
Source: Official website of the State –
An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
November 29th marks Letter "ё" Day—a date commemorating one of the most unusual letters in the Russian alphabet. Its history is more than just a linguistic curiosity, but an epic struggle for precision, honor, and even human destiny.
French roots
In 1783, at a meeting of the Imperial Russian Academy, its director and the first woman in the world to hold such a position, Princess Ekaterina Dashkova, proposed replacing the cumbersome spelling of "іо" with a single letter. After demonstrating the spelling of the word "іолка" to the academics, she asked: why waste two characters on one sound? Thus, "ё" was born—with two dots and a clearly defined purpose.
The idea was supported by writers Gavriil Derzhavin and Denis Fonvizin, who began using the new letter in personal and business correspondence. As early as 1795, Ivan Dmitriev first printed the "ё" in his song collection "And My Little Things"—in the word "vsyo" (everything). But widespread recognition came later, thanks to historian and writer Nikolai Karamzin. In 1797, he replaced "слиозы" with "слиозы" (tears) in the first Russian poetry almanac, "Аонды" (Aonides), and the letter entered everyday writing. The publication was distributed throughout the country, and for a long time, Karamzin was considered the father of the "ё," although the initiative belonged to Dashkova. Rumor has it that the idea came to Her Highness the Director, a great lover of champagne, from an unexpected source: the letter "ё" in the name of the then-very fashionable French wine house Moët.
Common sound
Despite its elite origins, the "ё" sound was long unpopular in aristocratic circles. In the 19th century, conservatives considered it unnecessary: the authoritative philologist Alexander Vostokov argued that we don't spell "fire" with an "a," even though we hear it as [a]. Meanwhile, in high society, the "ёканье" sound was perceived as a sign of common speech.
And yet, the letter gained strength. Leo Tolstoy included it in his "Azbuka" (also known as "ABC"), pronouncing and writing his name as "Lev" (Lion) in keeping with the old Muscovite tradition. In the archives of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, all student records contain the "yo" (or "ё"). The Governor-General of Moscow, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, also used periods in official documents. But there was no uniform orthography—everyone decided for themselves whether to use the "yo" (or "ё") in writing.
The revolutionary reform of 1918, contrary to expectations, did not enshrine the "ё" in the alphabet. Although the 1904 draft proposed its more active use, it was not mentioned in the final decree. The reason was not ideology, but economy: in the midst of the Civil War, there was no surplus metal for the production of new typographic fonts. Even unneeded old letters—yat, izhitsa—were melted down.
Return of two points
In 1942, at the height of the Great Patriotic War, the "ё" letter was revived. According to one theory, it was caused by confusion over the names of generals: Stalin was allegedly furious when he saw "Degtev" instead of "Dyogtev" in documents. Another theory is that Soviet intelligence discovered that the Germans were writing "ё" as "jo" on captured maps to avoid confusing, for example, Berezovka with Beryozovka. In any case, spelling accuracy proved more important than typographical savings: starting December 7, 1942, the newspaper Pravda began dotting the "ё," and an order from Vladimir Potemkin, the People's Commissar of Education, on December 24 finally enshrined the change. Although the "ё" letter was once again made optional after the war, this document remains formally in place today.
Practical difficulties later contributed to the "ё"'s ousting. Typewriters rarely had a dedicated key for it—to insert periods, the typist had to return the carriage and type quotation marks over the "е," while writing by hand required three movements. In early computer encodings, the letter was often missing. And in editorial offices, the belief persists that the "ё" visually "spoils" the layout.
On guard of meaning
But the main thing isn't convenience, but meaning. In 2009, thousands of Russians faced legal disputes due to the absence of the "ё" letter in their passports. There's a story about a certain Professor Yozhikov, who couldn't register an inheritance because his birth certificate listed his surname with periods, but his passport didn't. Court cases and piles of documents ensued—all because of two periods. Then, a decision by the Russian Ministry of Education and Science brought order to this chaos: the "ё" letter is mandatory in proper names, as it's a matter of legal status.
It's also important that the "ё" always indicates a stressed sound and eliminates spelling risks: for example, without it, the correct "свыокла" (svekla) would become the illiterate "ветклá," and the name of the "Планерная" station is now often pronounced as "Планерная" (Planernaya) because the "ё" is missing from the Moscow metro map. Furthermore, the absence of two dots above the "е" can completely distort the meaning: what did the writer mean when he wrote "передохинем" (we'll rest or die)?
Literary monument
In Ulyanovsk, Karamzin's birthplace, stands the world's only monument to a letter—a granite stele over two meters tall. It bears an exact replica of the "ё" imprint from the 1797 almanac "Aonides." It is a symbol of respect for a language in which every detail matters.
The letter "ё" has survived oblivion, neglect, and technical abandonment. But it has survived because it defends not only literary norms but also human rights, not just the rhythm of poetry. So, reviving the culture of "ё" isn't pedantry, but respect for the Russian word, for oneself, and for others. After all, these two little dots can have a profound impact on an entire human life.
Subscribe to the "Our GUU" Telegram channel. Publication date: November 29, 2025.
Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source. It represents an accurate account of the source's assertions and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.