Chapter I (2)

Vassilii Shukofsky, born 1784, a poet of true and deep feeling, without affectation, possessing more of what the Germans call _subjectivity_, than any other Russian writer. He took the Germans for his models, and partly imitated and partly translated them with success. Ivan Koslof, interesting by his personal character and trying misfortunes, must be mentioned as one of the most happy translators from the English and German. His literary talents were awakened only when he had lost the power of enjoying the world. Early in life he was deprived by sickness of the use of his limbs; and of his eyes, some years after. He bore this great affliction with the most amiable philosophy; devoted himself entirely to literature; and studied and imitated the English poets, chiefly Byron. Another successful translator of this great poet, who excited as much interest in Russia as in any other country, was Baron Rosen. Further, as lyrical poets, are also esteemed: Prince Vjazemsky, Vostokof distinguished as an Old Slavic philologist, Chwostof, Batjushkof,[33] Rileyef,[34] Baron Delwig, Glinka, etc.

At the head of the Russian poets stands, almost without a rival, Alexander Pushkin, born 1798, ob. 1835; but as his principal productions belong to the next period, and his influence is chiefly perceptible among the more recent poets, we defer for the present a fuller notice of his writings and his fortunes.

The Russians are particularly fond of fables. Besides Chemnitzer, mentioned above, who is flat and prosy, Ivan Krylof, born 1768, is celebrated in this department. He may be truly called the favourite of the nation. His fables, equally popular among all classes and conditions of life, are the first book that a Russian child reads. A considerable portion of them has been translated into French and Italian; partly by Count Orlof at Paris, and partly by friends of the latter, ladies and gentlemen of the most fashionable society in that capital, among whom that nobleman distributed the labour of translation. He then published them, with the original, in the year 1825. The perfect harmlessness and _naiveté_ of this author has made him also a favourite of the government; and when, twelve years ago, he celebrated his seventieth birthday, honours and distinctions of all kinds were accumulated on his head.

As dramatic poets, Shakhofskoi, Chmelnitzky, Gribojedof,[35] and Ozerof, must be mentioned; the first three chiefly as writers of comedies; the last as the author of a very popular drama entitled _Gore ot Uma_, Miseries of Intellect. While it cannot be doubted that the Russians have a decided talent for the comic, both as writers and as actors, it is still a fact that they have never produced a single tragedy of great power. Ozerof, who wrote quite a number of them, belongs more in spirit to the preceding period; during which the French was the only acknowledged model. The success he met with can be explained only by the want of competitors.

No form of poetry has found more favour in Russia than the historical novel. It was cultivated to some extent at this time; but the flower of this branch falls more properly within the following period. A voluminous novel, entitled _Bursak_ by B. Nareshnoi, belonged to another species. It was written with a good deal of harmless humour, somewhat in the style of Le Sage's Gil Blas. It narrated the history of a _Bursarian_, or scholar of one of the monastic seminaries in Malo-Russia; and is full of adventures, lively descriptions of manners, and amusing incidents.[36]

The literature of translations continued to occupy very many pens. Here must be mentioned: Gnjeditch's version of the Iliad; Merzljakof's translation of Tasso's Jerusalem; Wojeikof's Æneid; Martynof's translation of several ancient classics, etc.

To foreigners, the travels of the Russians by sea and land offer the most interesting and instructive part of their literature. The most distinguished of their well known expeditions have indeed been conducted by Germans, as Krusenstern, Kotzebue, Bellinghausen, Wrangel; some however by Russians, as Golovnin, Lazaref, and others; and the results of all of them contribute to the honour of Russia, and are laid up in the temple of her literature. The regions of Malo-Russia, the Caucasus, and Taurida, of which comparatively little was known, were explored by Muraviev-Apostol, Glinka, Bronefsky, and others; and described by them in valuable volumes. An account of China by Timkofsky, was translated in 1827 into the English language. The works of the monk Hyacinth Bitchourin, head of the Russian ecclesiastical mission at Pekin, published in 1828-32, are of great importance for the knowledge of China, Thibet, and the country of the Mongols.[37] The great patriot and protector of science, Romyanzof, whose name is known throughout the civilized world, caused Abalghasi's _Historia Mongolorum et Tartarorum_ to be printed in 1825, under the special care of the distinguished German oriental scholar Frahn. The publication of the Mongol work. _History of the Eastern Mongols and their Princes_, written by Ssanang Ssetzen, with a German translation and illustrations and remarks by J.J. Schmidt, although no Russian work, may be mentioned here; as it was only made possible by Russian means, and the support of the emperor. The same author, known to the literary world by his learned Researches in Eastern Asia, translated also the Gospels into the Mongol and Kalmuk languages for the Russian Bible Society. A Mongol Grammar was prepared by him in 1828, and the Mongol-German-Russian Dictionary was announced in 1834. A Mongol-Russian Dictionary had been previously published by Igumnof of Irkutzk. Volkof composed a Tartar Dictionary, an earlier one having been written by Giganof in 1804. For the study of the Armenian, numerous opportunities are presented; the Armenian archimandrite Seraphim published in 1819 an Armenian elementary Encyclopedia, and in 1822 a Russian Armenian Dictionary. But the oriental studies of the Russians are not limited to the languages of the Russian empire. A Hebrew Grammar has been published by Pavsky, the learned author of the Russian version of the Old Testament; and in the year 1821 there were, according to Henderson, not less than forty of his pupils employed as teachers in the different academies and seminaries throughout the country. An Arabic Grammar has been published by Boldryef, and also a Persian Chrestomathy in 1826. Senkofsky translated the _Derbent-Nahmeh_; and also edited with considerable additions the French-Arabic dictionary, originally written by the Swede Berggren, a work of great utility to the Arabic scholar; not a mere vocabulary, but full of geographical notices and general information; in short a work which, according to the prospectus written by the learned Frähn, "contains every thing that can be useful to the traveller, diplomatic agent, missionary, physician or merchant." The editor among other things has added in Roman characters the vulgar pronunciation of the Arabic, which differs materially from that given by the grammarians.

Among the ecclesiastical writers of this period, Ambrosius Protasof archbishop of Kazan and Simbirsk, and Philaret Drozdof archbishop of Moscow, are considered as the most eloquent. The last is the author of several works on church history. Other theological writers are the following: Eugene Bolchovitinof metropolitan of Kief,[38] Ambrosius Podobjedof metropolitan of Novogorod, and Michael Dosnitzky metropolitan of St. Petersburg. Stanislas Bogush, a Roman Catholic priest, published a history of Taurida and several other historical works in the Russian language. The branch of _Memoires_ in the French sense of the word, has recently been much cultivated. The publications of Count Munich, in 1818; of Prince Shakhofsky, 1821; of General Danilevsky. 1830; and of Admiral Shishkof, 1832; are valuable contributions to the history of our time. The two latter, although belonging to the next period in respect to the years of publication, are nevertheless productions of the period now under review, and refer chiefly to it.

The national feeling of the Russians has led them, during the period of their literary history, to examine the nature of their language; and all philosophical investigations, or antiquarian researches, which could throw additional light upon the past, have been favoured by persons of distinction and influence; as for example, by Admiral Shishkef, himself a writer on various subjects. With this view he caused a new edition of the Dictionary of the Russian Academy to be published; and set on foot the preparation of another more perfect work of that kind, founded on an improved plan.[39] To this class of philological antiquarians belong the names of Vostokof already cited in these pages, Sokolof, Kalaïdovitch, and Stroyef; the two latter learned and judicious commentators on old manuscripts which they first published, and which but for them would still lie mouldering in dust and oblivion. In the department of literary history and bibliography, we find as writers of merit, P. Köppen, author of the well-written article "Kunst mid Alterthum in Russland" in the Vienna _Jahrbücher_, and of various valuable paleographic and other essays in the Russian language; also Gretsch, Sopikof, Anastasevitch, the metropolitan Eugene above mentioned, Pletuef, Mussin-Pushkin, Korshavin, Katchenofsky, etc. etc. The principal activity and success of this school falls within the next period.

FIFTH PERIOD.

_From A.D. 1825 to the present time._

The reign of the emperor Nicholas opened with a bloody tragedy, which concerns us here only so far, as the dissatisfied, effervescing, unhealthy spirit of the literary youth of Russia was in a very striking manner exhibited in it.

Several poets and men of some literary fame were among the conspirators. Rileyef, Bestushef, and others, became the victims of their imprudence. An analogous spirit had some years before banished young Pushkin from the capital. It was evident, that the Russian muse was no longer the good old gossiping lady in French court-dress and hoops, who was ready to drop a humble courtesy to every person of rank and influence; she was no longer the shepherdess who had inspired Dmitrief with his sweet yet tame verses; she had been by the example and the pernicious influence of the modern philosophical schools gradually metamarphosed into a wild romantic girl, burning with desire to drink freely, and without being watched by police agents, from the true source of poetry open to all nations; to rove about in the world of imagination free from fetters and restraint. The means which the emperor chose to cure her from these eccentricities; to chain her at home by endearing it to her; in short, to _Russify_ her again; were certainly _judicious_.

We have seen that the spirit of historical and archaeological researches, as well as the interest for the study of the Slavic languages, was already awakened in the preceding period. The government did every thing to favour it, and to nurse that truly patriotic zeal which tries to penetrate the past in order to search for those links which connect it with the present. All influence from without was as much as possible checked; the professorships of philosophy were abolished at all the universities (1827); the scissors of censorship were directed to cut sharper; the catalogue of forbidden books was made longer; the permission to travel was often denied, and the term of lawful absence for a Russian subject confined to five years. But in the interior, within the safe inclosure of the Chinese walls of protection against the epidemic fever of the age, the most energetic measures were taken to promote national education, and to cultivate those fields of science where no political tares could be sown among the grain.

Of all political ideas, one at least was favoured; and this was the great idea of _Panslavism_, that is, of the close connection or union of all the Slavic races among themselves. Of this great family, some of whose members after a short period of flourishing life are withering fast away, if not supported by the whole, Russia is the natural head, the great animating soul, into which the other parts all must naturally be absorbed at last. This idea, first scientifically wrought out by Bohemian scholars, and cherished by their pride, which was justly offended by the oppressions and undisguised contempt experienced from the Germans, was well received by the Russian literati; and even by many of those who naturally loved the Poles, and did not approve of the harsh measures of the Russian government. There was even in Poland itself a school which adopted this view; nay, some distinguished Polish scholars claim it as their own original idea. According to them, the Austrians and Prussians alone were the real usurpers; in being absorbed by Russia as a member of the great Slavic empire, Poland yielded only to its fate, and could hope for a more glorious _Panslavic_ resurrection, i.e. a resurrection as a member of the great whole.[40]

In reference to the critical researches, which were made through all branches of history, the period now under review may be appropriately called the _historical_ period. The investigations of the Archæological Commission, have been mentioned above. It was first appointed in 1834; and considerably enlarged in 1837. The examination of manuscripts was not confined to the libraries of the empire; Stroyef was sent to Paris, Newerof to Germany, Solovyef to Denmark and Sweden, Wenelin to Bulgaria; and Nadeshdin travelled among the despised Russian tribes of Northern Hungary. In 1844, five volumes of Russian annals were printed; besides a series of historical and juridical documents which had preceded them. The Moscow Historical and Geographical Society, an older institution, and also the St. Petersburg Historical Society founded in 1846, have contributed their share of information; and a general interest has been awakened among the higher classes of society.

The new critical spirit of the times was first perceptible in the bold attitude assumed by the editor of a periodical work, called the _Telegraph_. Polevoi was a self-made man, a merchant without classical education, without deep learning, and indeed without depth in any thing. He had however by an uncommon share of sagacity, by a rare energy of thought, and a restless activity, gained more influence over his countrymen than any previous writer; and succeeded In giving to his very popular periodical an important voice in all matters of literature. In the year 1829 he announced a new History of Russia, in twelve volumes; and at the same time expressed the opinion, that Karamzin's work was to be called neither practical nor philosophical, and was no longer worthy of the present standing of Russian literature. His own publication, which followed soon afterwards, and was executed with the rapidity which was characteristic of the man, proved that it is easier to point out the deficiencies of others, than to avoid them ourselves.

The young historical school found another champion in Sergei Skromnenko, who attacked the authority of Nestor, or at least the age ascribed to this first Russian annalist; essaying to prove that he did not write before the beginning of the fourteenth, or perhaps towards the end of the thirteenth century.[41] Another young historian, J. Bodianski, defended this opinion. W. Perewostschikof examined it in a separate work.[42] Pogodin, a name of more weight, refuted it in his _Studies on Nestor_; and it seems since to have been given up.

Another production of some importance was an "Essay towards a Geography of the Old Russian World," by Nadeshdin; in which the author attempted with ability and success to trace the old seats of the Slavic nations. Several monographs and histories of particular regions or periods appeared in the interval between 1830 and 1842. Such were the histories, e.g. of the unfortunate Prince Ivan and his relatives, by Polenof; of Catharine II. by Lefort; of Tzar Boris Godunof, by Krayefski; of Peter II, by Arsenief. Also a History of the time of troubles (as the period between Boris Godunof and the reign of the house of Romanof is called) by Buturlin; the biographies of the first three Tzars of the house of Romanof, by Berg; the histories of Kief by Samailof, of Pskow by Pogodin, of Siberia by Slowzof; of the fair of Nishni Novogorod, which goes back to the fourteenth century, by Zubof; of the Zaporoguean Kozaks by Sreznefski. This latter valuable work is especially rich in historical popular songs, never before printed. Further, the History of the insurrection of Pugatschef, by the poet Pushkin; the Historical and statistical survey of Russia, by T. Bulgarin; and the Memoirs for Russian History by Svinyin (ob. 1839); must be here mentioned. The two latter had hitherto been more known as writers of novels than as historians; and the rosy light which the first of the two tries to throw over his subject, seems still to testify more to his talent for romance than to his historical truthfulness.

This was however the spirit in which the government wished its historians to write. A work of decided importance appeared in 1839, a History of Russia, in which the principles of _Panslavism_ were developed in a striking manner. The author, Professor Oustrialof, who had made himself favourably known by several monographs relating to Russian History, has displayed in the above-mentioned work not only considerable acuteness, but also a great deal of research, consistency, and thoroughness.[43] His principal tendency is to represent Russia as the natural central point of the Slavic race. The immediate result of the appearance of this work was, that Oustrialof was commissioned by the government to write a compendium or guide for historical instruction in all the schools of the empire.

Although this view may be called the most popular in Russia, it appears from the decided predilection with which Russian writers of history devote their pens to subjects anterior to the reign of Peter I, that they consider the comparatively greater liberty which is allowed them in their researches into the history of this earlier period as a decided advantage. Karamzin had proved by the picture he drew of Ivan the Terrible, that, at this remote period at least, justice was free. It may thus be explained, why Boris Godunof, the friend of the people, the promoter of liberal ideas and modern improvements, is a favourite subject of the young historical school.

The treatment of modern history has in Russia its own difficulties, which may easily be comprehended; and nothing is permitted to appear without the approval of the government. General Michailovski-Danilevski, who wrote a history of the war of 1812-14, may be considered as its true representative. He ascribes all the merits of the final victory of the Allies to the Russians alone. Among several works of that time written in an analogous spirit, the "Description of the campaigns of 1812 and 1814" must be noticed; because the author is a lady by the name of Dorof, who served in the army as a common soldier, and describes only what she saw. An anonymous work, written by an eye-witness, gives an account of the Turkish war in 1828-29. The work entitled "Biographies of the Russian Admirals" (1834), gives a history of the Russian navy.

In no department has Russian Literature remained more behind its age, than in the treatment of foreign history, and especially European history. The series of publications which have appeared relating to it, consist almost exclusively of defective translations, or weak imitations. For the Russian scholar this defect was less essential than for the public in general, as all of them read foreign languages. Pogodin has recently begun to give more attention to this subject.

In respect to several Asiatic nations we are almost entirely dependent on Russian writers. The priest Hyacinth, honourably mentioned in connection with this branch, continues his useful activity. Chopin on the provinces of the Caucasus (1840); Nefedyef on the Wolga-Kalmuks (1835); several articles in the Siberian Mercury, a periodical; a History of the Mongols, from the Persian, by Grigoryef; the Kirgises of the inner Horde, by Khanikof; and several publications of the Geographical Society of St. Petersburg; deserve to be noticed here. The works of two foreigners, one by Haguemaster on the Commerce with Persia and Turkey, the other by Chaudoir on the Numismatics of China, Japan, and Korea, may also be included; as they appeared simultaneously in the Russian and French languages, and were both of them occasioned by the Russian government.

The interest of the Russians for Law as a science has only recently been excited. Prince Peter of Oldenburg, a cousin of the emperor, founded a Law School in 1832. Since that time the nobility have endowed several professorships of law in the universities; and the names of N. Krylof and Manoshkin have become favourably known in this department.

In Statistics the name of Arsenyef is an authority. Many valuable contributions are to be found in Stepanof's Description of the Government of Yennissci, and in various Russian periodicals; especially in the annals of several Bureaus, which are from time to time published by the government, and the Statistical Annuals edited by the Academy.

The literature of Travels cannot well be very rich at the present day, in a country where travelling to foreign lands meets with so many difficulties; and where even travels in the interior are at least not made very easy. To the most valuable productions in the first department belong: Norof's Journey to the Holy Land, St. Pet. 1838; Davidof's to Greece and Italy; Demidof's to Moldavia and Wallachia; Korf's to Persia; Wcewolodski to the East and through Europe; Gretsch to the Western countries of Europe, etc. Two collections of _old_ travels, viz. one containing those made by Russians to foreign countries, among which is the description of a journey to the Holy Land in the twelfth century; another comprising the accounts of foreigners who travelled in Russia in olden times; have also recently been published.

Modern works of travels in Russia have been written by A. Demidof, Baer, Böthlingk, Glagolyef, Kavelin, and others. Most of these journeys were made for certain scientific purposes. Mouravyef's Pilgrimage to the holy places of Russia must be classified rather as a work of religion.

And here a short survey of this latter branch of Russian literature may naturally be subjoined. To it belong the other works of the writer just mentioned; who is attached to his own church with an almost fanatical enthusiasm. They are, first, a History of the Greek Church; secondly, Letters on the Greek Church Service. An elaborate History of the Russian Patriarchate, published a few years ago, is ascribed to the bishop Philarete, a clergyman who is said to have shown an immoderate zeal in making proselytes in the Baltic provinces. A biographical History of the Russian Saints, by Yeristof, belongs also here. Of theological _science_ there can hardly be a trace, in a country where all free investigation in exegetical matters is cut off. Theological literature is entirely confined to synodal orations and some ascetic writings. The spirit of the present age in Russia is strictly orthodox; and the monocracy of the Greek Church is the great object for which clergy and laity exert themselves; especially in the Baltic provinces. Among sermons, those of Innocenz, vicar of the metropolitan of Kief, are much admired.

Literary history has recently been a favourite branch. Polevoi, Gretsch, Schevyrof, Maximovitch, Nadeshdin, Nikitenko; and, in respect to languages and antiquities, Kalaidovitch, Vostokof and Koppen, the latter of German extraction, and mentioned in the preceding period; are the names which have most weight in these matters.

We have at last come back to _belles lettres_, the department of literature by which the genius of a nation is most distinctly characterized. The tendencies which in Russia prevail in the other branches, viz. a revival of interest for all that is native, Slavic, or relating to the past; the reaction from a period of fondness for all that was foreign and outlandish; is very clearly perceptible also in this portion of literature. Yet the Russians, once forcibly thrust into the way of _imitation_ by their great Tzar, appear here even now only as imitators; and are still far from having found the path back to their simple popular poetry.

After this remark it cannot surprise us, that towards the close of the last, and especially at the beginning of the present period, the historical novel was cultivated with particular fondness; and was almost exclusively devoted to _Russian_ history. T. Bulgarin, P. Svinyin, Sagoskin, Massalski, wrote the most approved works of that kind. More recently the novelists have rather returned to the description of morals and manners, as their more appropriate province. Pawlof, Prince Odoyeski, Lermontof, Gogol, Laschetnikof, Weltmann, Dahl, who writes under the name of Kozak Luganski, are the most popular writers of tales. Karamzin and Shukofski are still considered as models in this department.

We must not forget to mention here the unhappy youth Alexander Bestushef; who, as lieutenant in one of the Petersburg regiments, was, like his friend Rileyef, implicated in the conspiracy of 1825. He was deprived of his nobility and illustrious name, and sent to the mines of Siberia; afterwards, as a species of pardon, he was placed as a common soldier in the army of the Caucasus, where he rose to the rank of an officer and fell soon after by the balls of the Therkesses. He had been well known to his countrymen as the editor of a favourite Annual, entitled the _Polar Star_; and as the author of a very spirited and clear survey of Russian literature, distinguished by characteristic sketches of some of their principal poets. The name of Bestushef was buried; but its bearer succeeded a second time in acquiring a literary reputation under the name of Alexander Marlinski. His Sketches of the Caucasus and of Siberia, his tales entitled Amulat Beg and Mullah Nur, are animated and spirited pictures of scenes quite novel and fresh. He has been compared to the German novelist Spindler; but, although this latter has the advantage in respect to invention, we think Marlinsky _far_ superior to him in a poetical respect. There is a vigour, a freshness, an originality, in some of his descriptions, which would class him among true poets, even when stripped of the novelty of the scenery among which they are laid, and which gives them indeed a peculiar attraction. Nothing was more natural nor even more honourable to the Russian public, than that, as an unavoidable effect of the pity and interest felt for this young writer, his real talent should have been for a short time overrated. But even after his death, it seems that the government regarded this enthusiasm with suspicion; for in a literary collection in which the unprinted works of one hundred writers are promised,[44] accompanied by their portraits, Marlinsky's portrait was not permitted to appear.

The attention of the Russian literati has been for some time directed mainly by the Germans to their own treasures of popular poetry. They are particularly rich in nursery tales, for which the nation indeed has always had a great fondness; but which, during an age of a false pedantic taste, were after all not thought worthy of literary preservation until of late. In close connection with this subject is the cultivation of popular dialects. Grebenko and Kwitka, the latter under the name of Osnovianenko, wrote their charming novels in the Malo-Russian or Ruthenian dialect. Several writers of talent, natives of Malo-Russia, endeavoured to establish their language as a literary language in opposition to the Great Russian. The judiciousness of these proceedings, especially as the Russian literature has hardly passed from childhood to youth, would seem very questionable, even if their practicability was settled.

As to poetry, the reader will be surprised to hear, that Russian critics themselves think the short-lived flower of the Russian soil already in danger of fading; the productiveness of their poets being already apparently on the decline. No genius has risen as a rival to Pushkin. Alexander Pushkin, born 1799, showed his uncommon talents early; he was educated at one of the imperial Institutes, and was in the service of the government; when an Ode to Liberty, written in too bold a spirit, induced the emperor Alexander to banish him from St. Petersburg. He obtained however employment in the southern provinces of Russia; and life in these wild and poetical regions was more favourable to the development of his genius, than that of the capital ever could have been. All his poetry bears strong testimony to Byron's influence; but he would be wrongly judged if taken as a mere imitator of that great poet. His poetical tales, _Ruslan and Ludmilla_, from the heroic times of Russia; _The Prisoner of the Mountains_, a Caucasian scene (1823): and the _Fountain of Baktshiserai,_ a Tartar Story (1824); have each great beauties. The emperor Nicholas, when at Moscow on the occasion of his coronation, recalled him, and showed himself his patron. He made him one of the historiographers of the empire: and the archives were opened to him. The effect on the whole was not favourable to the poet's genius. The first production after his return to fashionable life was 'Eugene Onegin,' a novel in verse, the life of _un homme blasé_. Of this Byronic tendency, his Prisoner, and a great many of his small poems likewise, bear strong evidence. And it is this feature chiefly, which, in turn, Pushkin's followers and imitators have seized upon; for instance, Lermontof. It is painful to see, how, instead of the freshness, the vigour, the joyfulness, which we ought to meet in the representatives of a young and rising literature, resting on the foundation of a rich, uncorrrupted, original language, we find in them the ennui, the dissatisfaction, and the indifference of a set of _roués_ disgusted with life. It seems as if after having emptied the cup of the vanities of the world to the very dregs, this world, which has nothing left for their enjoyment, is despised by them; unfortunately, however, without having educated their minds for a better one. In his later productions, especially in his _Boris Godunof_, a drama, which may be rather called a tragical historical picture than a regular tragedy, Pushkin showed a more elevated mind, and a more objective way of viewing things. His last work, we believe, was his _Istorija Bunta_, History of the Insurrection of Pugatshef; no noble struggle for liberty, but a mere mutiny. He died in St. Petersburg in 1835, a short time after a marriage of choice and inclination; in a duel occasioned by a fit of jealousy, maliciously provoked by some of the courtiers.

Other successful lyrical poets of this period are, Chomiakof, Baratinski, N. Jazikof, A. Timofeyef, Benedictof, Sokolovski, A. Podolinski, Lucian Jakubovitch, A. Ilitshevski, etc. Several ladies also have recently mounted the Pegasus. A Princess Volkonski, a Countess Rostoptshin, a Miss Teplef, are favourably mentioned; as are also Anna Bunin and a Mrs. Pawlof, the latter as a happy translator. A Mrs. Helene Han, who writes under the name of Zeneide B., is compared to George Sand. Nor must we forget two natural poets so called, that is, men from the people, who write verses; one named Alipanof, born a serf, and the other Kolzof. The lyric poets enumerated in the last period are all mostly still alive and continue to write.

The very limited productiveness of the Russian poets is however a very striking and discouraging feature. While in the animated forest of German poetry, even during the most trying struggles of the times, a full chorus of songs and ballads resounds from every branch, we hear from Russian groves only solitary voices, and these voices seem to be exhausted almost as soon as they are heard. A volume of twenty sheets is in general considered in Russia as quite a respectable collection. Pushkin is almost the only one of their poets, whose very thoughts were verses.

The more exuberant, however, do we find the productiveness of some of their dramatic writers. Polevoi, whom we have mentioned as the editor of the "Telegraph," and as a keen critic who exerted great influence, poured out a whole flood of tragedies and comedies. To judge from the applause with which they were received on the stage, the writer was more successful in this branch, than in his historical enterprises. Besides him, Lenski, Koni, Feodorof, and others, as well as numerous translators, furnished provision for the stage. The most respectable talent was shown by Kukolnik; of whom his countrymen have a very high idea, but to whom foreign critics assign rather a lyric than a dramatic genius. The reverential attachment of Russians to their monarch is exhibited in the very titles chosen by several dramatic poets. One of Kukolnik's dramas bears the rather prolix name, "The hand of the Almighty shelters the Tzar." A piece of Glinka is called, "Our Life for the Tzar," etc.

The popular poetry which is scattered over all Slavic countries, has at last received the attention due to it. That of Russia is not so early as that of some other branches of the same family; with the exception however of certain songs for harvest, weddings, festivals, funerals, and some other like verses, sung or recited on certain stated occasions. There are among them some, which in their most essential portions are derived from pagan times. The Ukraine, and indeed Malo-Russia in general, and all the regions where Ruthenian tribes have settled, are particularly rich in popular poetry. Valuable miscellaneous collections have been made by Prince Tzertelef, Maximovitch, Sacharof, by the Polish literati Bielowski and Siemienski, Bodianski, etc.[45]

To the philological works enumerated on page 84, we may add the following productions of the present period: Brosset, on the Literature and Language of Armenia and Georgia;[46] also the Dictionaries of these languages by Chodubashef and Tschubinof, the latter (Georgian or Grusinian) the first which was ever published; a Chinese grammar by the priest Hyacinth, who prepared likewise a history of China some years ago, which we must suppose has been published. A new Turkish dictionary was published in 1830 by Rhasis. Prince Alexander Handsheri prepared another of French, Arabic, Turkish, and Persian; in aid of which the Sultan subscribed for 200 copies. Sjogren, an academician, known by his Studies on the Finnish Language and Literature, devoted himself in connection with the latter to the Caucasian idioms, and published the results in the Transactions of the Academy. A Turco-Tartar grammar was written by Kasembeg, a Tartar by birth, but educated in European Russia, and professor of those languages at the university of Kazan.

In the different departments of natural science, although the Russians may be still called beginners, their progress has recently been immense. This has resulted in a great measure from the judicious plan of the government, in sending out annually a certain number of young men to study at German universities. Philosophy as a science was formerly despised, and considered as the exclusive property of German pedants and bookworms;[47] but since German philosophy has seemed to take a more practical turn, it has begun to excite more interest. The government, which in the first affright after the conspiracy of 1825, had abolished all the professorships of philosophy, began to relax; and went even so far as to send young men to Germany for these studies, and to re-establish the chairs in several of the Russian universities. It was, however, still regarded as a _dangerous_ science; and the learning which some young clergymen acquired in it--Golubinski, Gabriel, and above all Sidonski--was carefully watched, and proved of little value to the public.

In regard to periodical literature, the number of _political_ journals is of course very small. That which most highly extols the merits and exploits of the Russians is always considered as the best, and is most patronized by the government and the nation. In Russia the _praise_ of one's country and _love_ for it are regarded as synonymous ideas. The literary journals, most of which are of a miscellaneous character, are more in number, and are generally conducted with some critical talent. Those of a purely scientific character are rarely sustained longer than a few years; for instance, the very valuable Bibliographical Journal, edited by P. Köppen in 1825-26. The ephemeral race of _Annuals_, those vehicles of superficial taste and knowledge, early took broad possession of the Russian Parnassus. In the year 1839, eight hundred and eighty different works were published in Russia; of which seventy-three only were translations. The number of journals and periodicals, which in general are quite thick pamphlets, amounted only to fifty-three. In 1842 those latter had increased to one hundred and thirty-nine; nearly three times as many as in the former year. Of these 98 were in the Russian language, 22 in German, 8 in French, 1 in Italian, 3 in Polish, and 3 in Lettonian.[48]

In a recent work on Russian literature, by F. Otto,[49] the Lexicon of authors subjoined comprises about 250 names; and the English translator speaks of having seen a list of nearly _twelve hundred_ more in the author's hands. We are compelled to regard this last statement with some distrust; especially when we perceive, that among the names printed in the Lexicon, at least _thirty_ are Germans and Poles who wrote _on_ Russian matters, but not _in_ Russian. It is also singular to find among Russian _authors_, not only the Grand-duke Constantine of Kief, because he was a _patron_ of science, and first caused the Old Slavonic Bible to be printed; but also even the old traditional bard Bojan, mentioned in the ancient epic of Igor![50]

The recent movements in Europe have of course built up still higher the Chinese wall which surrounds the Russian empire. Even in anticipation of them, the government had been seized with a new shock of fear; and attempted to shut out the intrusive new lights. This was indicated by several strong and very unpopular measures; among which we may here mention, that travellers in foreign countries were called home, and the number of students at each university was suddenly limited to _three hundred_.

This is not the place to enlarge on the distinguished merits which foreigners, and especially Germans, have acquired in relation to Russian history, statistics, etc. But their labours in relation to the language, form a part of the literature to which they were devoted; and cannot of course be separated from the works of native writers. The most distinguished names in this department are again Germans, viz. Heym, Vater, Tappe, Puchmayer, etc. The catalogue of elementary works upon the Russian language, is too long to be inserted here; we limit ourselves therefore to those only which are written in English, and the best in German and French. The English grammars and dictionaries of the Russian, are indeed so few, that an American or Englishman would hardly succeed in acquiring a full knowledge of the language, except through the medium of the German and French. The first Russian Grammar, however, that was ever printed, was published at Oxford. We give the titles of this and of the other principal grammars and lexicons of the Russian language, in the note below.[51]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: Also called Ivan I.]

[Footnote 2: See more on this subject in Part IV.]

[Footnote 3: See Schaffarik, _Geschichte_ p. 178, note 4.]

[Footnote 4: Sviatoslav, Jaropulk, Jaroslav, etc.]

[Footnote 5: The chronographic manuscript in which the above poem was found, entitled _Slowa o polku Igora_, literally _Speech on Igor's Expedition_, is said to have also contained several other pieces of poetry. By an unpardonable carelessness, the manuscript, after Igor was copied, was lost again. We hear too of an old poetical tale, _History of the wicked Tzar Mamai_; but have no means of ascertaining its age or value, nor even its existence.]

[Footnote 6: _Pravda Russka_, Jus Russorum. See above, p. 40, n. 19.]

[Footnote 7: See above, p. 41.]

[Footnote 8: These valuable chronicles were continued under different titles, but without interruption, until the reign of Alexis, father of Peter I.]

[Footnote 9: The Mongols and Tartars have been frequently confounded by historical writers; they are however two races perfectly distinct from each other, the first a North-Eastern, the second a South-Western Asiatic nation. The Mongols, however, between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, conquerors of the Tartars as well as of half Asia, and of Europe as far as Silesia, and comparatively not numerous, amalgamated gradually with the subjugated Tartars among whom they settled. The present Mongols are partly under the sovereignty of China in the ancient Mongolia, the country whence Jenghis Khan came; partly Russian subjects, scattered through the government of Irkutzk, and mixed with Kalmucks and other Asiatic tribes.]

[Footnote 10: Also called Ivan II, and Ivan the Cruel; by modern historians the Russian Nero.]

[Footnote 11: See above, p. 51.]

[Footnote 12: Most of these dramas are extant in manuscript in the synodal library at Moscow. A selection has been printed in the _Drewn. Rossisk. Bibliotheka_, i.e. Old Russian Library, Moscow 1818.]

[Footnote 13: The above mentioned chronicles, and another series of annals of a genealogical character, known under the title _Stepennaja Knigi_, mutually supply each other. Simon of Suzdal, the metropolitan Cyprian a Servian by birth, and Macarius metropolitan of Moscow a clergyman of great merits, are to be named here. Another old chronicle called _Sofiiskii Wremenik_ was first published in 1820 by Stroyef. A chronicle of Novogorod referring to the sixteenth century was found by the same scholar in the library at Paris.]

[Footnote 14: There is, however, in the style of Nestor and his immediate successors, a certain effort towards animation. Speeches and dialogues are introduced, and pious reflections and biblical sentences are scattered through the whole.]

[Footnote 15: Known under the title _Nikonov spisok_, published St. Petersburg 1767-92, 8 vols. For the _Improvement_ of the Slavonic Bible, Nikon alone, by applying to the Patriarch of Constantinople and other Greek dignitaries, obtained 500 Greek MSS. of the whole or portions of the N. Test. Some of them contained also the Septuagint. These were mostly from Mount Athos, and are now the celebrated Moscow MSS. collated by Matthæi. See Henderson, p. 52, 53.]

[Footnote 16: Joseph Sanin, a monk, wrote a history of the Jewish heresy, so called, in the fifteenth century, and a series of sermons against it. This last was also done by the bishop of Novogorod, Gennadius]

[Footnote 17: A part of the O.T. Prague 1517-19; the Acts and Epistles, Vilna 1525. Skorina, in one of his prefaces, found it necessary to excuse his meddling with holy things by the example of St. Luke, who, he says, was of the same profession. The dialect of this translation is the White Russian; and the book of Job contains the first specimen of Russian _rhymed_ poetry.]

[Footnote 18: The Russians, however, out of the forty-six characters of the Slavonic alphabet, could make use only of thirty-five; the Servians, according to Vuk Stephnanovitch, only of twenty-eight.]

[Footnote 19: Or _Kopiyevitch_, the same whom we have mentioned as having improved the appearance of the alphabet.]

[Footnote 20: The same Glück had translated the Gospels into Lettonian, and made also an attempt to furnish the Russians with a version of the Scriptures in their vulgar tongue. The detail may be read in Henderson's Researches, p. 111. The Russian church had a zealous advocate in the archbishop Lazar Baranovitch, ob. 1693.]

[Footnote 21: Kirsha Danilof's work was first published at Moscow, 1804, with the title _Drevniya Ruskiya Stichotvoreniya_, Old Russian Poems. A more complete edition, by Kaloidovitch, appeared in 1818.--A valuable little work in German by C.v. Busse, _Fürst Vladimir und seine Tafelrunde_, Leipzig 1819, was probably founded on that of Danilof.]

[Footnote 22: As a characteristic of this poet, we mention only that the empress Catharine, in her social parties, used to inflict as a punishment for the little sins against propriety committed there, e.g. ill humour, passionate disputing, etc. the task of learning by heart and reciting a number of Trediakofsky's verses.]

[Footnote 23: Lomonosof's works were first collected and published by the Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg, 1803, 6 vols. in several editions.]

[Footnote 24: His masterpiece, _Nedorosl_, "Mama's Darling," literally _the Minor_, published 1787, presents an incomparable picture of the manners, habits, etc. of the Russian country gentry. Potemkin, who was Von Wisin's patron, felt so enchanted once after a theatrical representation of this comedy, that he advised the author to die now. "Die, Denis!" he cried, "thou canst not write any thing better! do not survive thy glory." A posthumous drama by the same author has recently been found and printed.]

[Footnote 25: Also into Japanese, according to Golovnin's account, and suspended in like manner in the temple of Jeddo. See Bowring's Russian Anthol. I. p. 3.]

[Footnote 26: This was a monthly periodical, first published 1755. The list of Germans whose labours have proved of the highest importance to Russia is very long; among them are those of Pallas, Schlözer, Frähn, Krug, etc. The department of statistics has been exclusively cultivated by Germans, Livonians, etc. and all that the Russians have done in the philological and historical departments, rests on the preceding solid and profound labours of German scholars.]

[Footnote 27: To the honour of the Russians it must be said, that it is still so. Dershavin and Dmitrief were ministers of state; Griboyedof was an ambassador; Karamzin occupied, and Shishkof and Shukovski still occupy, high offices of the empire.]

[Footnote 28: His _Summary of Christian Divinity_ has been translated by Dr. Pinkerton, and published in his "Present state of the Greek Church in Russia."]

[Footnote 29: A survey of the number and general classification of the universities and schools in Russia at this period, is to be found in the American Quarterly Observer for Jan. 1834, Vol. II. No. 1.]

[Footnote 30: On all that relates to the Russian Bible Society, Henderson's Biblical Researches contain most interesting details. The active part, however, which he ascribes to the Jesuits in effecting the suppression of the Society, is far from being historically ascertained.]

[Footnote 31: See Backmeister's _Russische Bibliothek_, Riga 1772-87.]

[Footnote 32: Of Karamzin's _Istorija Gosudarstva Rossissavo_, History of the Russian Empire, (extending only to the reign of the house of Romanof, A.D. 1613,) in eleven volumes, a second edition was published in 1818. His other works have been collected in nine volumes, of which a third edition was published in 1820. This great historical work has been translated twice into German, first by Hauenschild and Oertel, and later by Tappe; and twice into French, St. Pet. 1818, and by St. Thomas and Jauffort, Paris 1820.]

[Footnote 33: The Foreign Quarterly Review contains under the head _Critical Sketches_, a review of Batjushkof's works and a Specimen of his poetry. Vol. IX. p.218.]

[Footnote 34: Executed as involved in the conspiracy of 1825.]

[Footnote 35: He was sent as Russian ambassador to Persia; and was there slaughtered by a mob in 1829.]

[Footnote 36: _Bursak, Malorossiiskaja powiest_, Mosk. 1824.]

[Footnote 37: This venerable missionary, who resided at Pekin from 1807 to 1821, published after his return to his own country a series of valuable and instructive works, a catalogue of which, as they have met with general acknowledgment in foreign countries, will not be unacceptable to the American reader.--1. _Sapiski o Mongolii_, Account of Mongolia, St. Pet. 1828, 2 vols. It contains a part of his travels, a description of the country and people, and a translation of the Mongol code of laws.--2. _Opisanie Tibeta_, i.e. Description of Thibet in its present state, translated from the Chinese, with remarks and illustrations, St. Pet. 1828. This work has been translated into French and published by Klaproth under the title: _Description du Tubet partiellement du Chinois en Russe, par le P. Hyacinth Bitchourin, et du Russe en Francois par M.... etc. Accompagnée de Notes par M. Klaproth_, Paris 1831.--3. Description of Dshongary and Eastern Turkestan, in 2 vols. under the title: _Opisanie Dshongarii i vostotchnavo Turkestana_, etc. St. Pet. 1829.--4. _Istorija pervyck tchetyrech Chanov_, i.e. History of the first four Khans of the House of Jenghis, St. Pet. 1829. This and the preceding work are not properly translations, but original works drawn from _Chinese_ sources, all of which are specified. Besides these works, Hyacinth has published some of less importance, translations from the Chinese, etc. etc.]

[Footnote 38: The reputation of this clergyman rests however more on his publications in the department of bibliographical and literary history, than on his own theological works.]

[Footnote 39: The etymological tables, published since 1819 by Shishkof, as a specimen of the labours of the Academy, are highly interesting. We see here the words reduced to the first elements of the language; and in some cases more than 3000 words springing from a single root.]

[Footnote 40: This view seems to have been taken by Count Adam Gurowski, now in this country, the author of the _European Pentarchy_, Leipzig 1839; a work in which a great deal of mental power and an admirable acuteness is employed to defend the despotic claims of Russia, and to shake the independence of Germany.]

[Footnote 41: _O mnimoi drewnosti etc._ i.e. On the pretended age, the original form, and the sources of our History; first printed in the periodical, "The Library," in 1835.]

[Footnote 42: _O Russkich Letopisiach, etc._ i.e. On the Russian Chronicles and their writers, Petersb. 1836.]

[Footnote 43: It appeared in a German translation as early as 1840.]

[Footnote 44: _Sto Literaturow, etc._, edited by Smirdin, Petersb. 1840, etc.]

[Footnote 45: See in Part IV.]

[Footnote 46: In connection with this work stands the Grammar by the same writer, written in French: _Elémens de la Langue Georgienne_, 1838.]

[Footnote 47: There are a few honourable exceptions. The work _Essais philosophiques sur l'homme, publiés par De Jakob_, Halle 1818, although written in French, was the production of a Russian, the late writer Poletika, brother of the former Russian ambassador of that name in this country.]

[Footnote 48: According to official reports, more than seven millions of volumes of Russian books were printed in the ten years from 1833 to 1843; and four and a half millions of foreign books were imported. During the same ten years 784 new schools were established. In 1842, there were in the Russian empire 2166 schools of all kinds; among them _six_ universities.]

[Footnote 49: F. Otto, _History of Russian Literature, with a Lexicon of Russian Authors. Translated from the German by the late G. Cox_. Oxford 1839.]

[Footnote 50: See above, p. 51.]

[Footnote 51: This was Ludolf's _Grammatica Russica et manuductio ad linguam Slavonicam_, Oxon. 1696.--ENGLISH Russian Grammars are, _Novaya ross. Gram. dlja Anglitshani_, 'Russian Grammar for Englishmen,' St. Petersburg, 1822. Heard's _Practical Grammar of the Russian Language_, St. Pet. 1827. 2 vols. 8vo.--GERMAN Russian Grammars are: Heym's _Russ. Sprachlehre für Deutsche_, Riga, 1789, 1794, 1804. Vater's _Prakt. Gramm. der russ. Sprache_, Leipz. 1808, 1814. Tappe's _Neue russ. Sprachlehre für Deutsche_, St. Pet. 1810, 1814, 1820. Schmidt's _Prakt. russ. Grammattk_, Leipz. 1813. Puchmayer's _Lehrgebäude der russ. Sprache_, last edit. Prague 1843. Gretsch, _Grundregeln der russ. Sprache_, from the Russian by Oldekop, 1828. The newest German-Russian Grammars are: J.E. Schmidt's _Russische Sprachlehre, und Leitfaden zur Erlernung, etc._ Leipz. 1831. _Noakovski Grammatica Rossiiskaya_, Lipsk. 1836. A Malo-Russian Grammar, _Mala-Ross. Grammatica_, was published by Pawlofski, St. Pet. 1818.--FRENCH Russian Grammars are: Maudru's _Elémens raisonnés de la langue Russe_, Paris 1802. Langan's _Manual de la langue Russe_, St. Pet. 1825. Charpentier's _Elémens de la langue Russe_, St. Pet. 1768 to 1805, five editions. Gretsch, _Grammaîre raisonnée de la langue Russe_, par Reiff, St. Pet. 1828.

DICTIONARIES.--ENGLISH. Parenoga's _Lex. Anglinsko-ross._ and _Russian-English Lexicon_, 4 vols. 1808-17. Zdanof's _Angl.-ross._ and _Russian-Engl, Dict_. St. Pet. 1784. Constantinon's _Russian Grammar and Dict_. 3 vols. 8vo. Lond. _A Russian-Engl_. and _Engl.-Russ. Dict_. 18mo. Leipz. Tauchn. 1846.--GERMAN. Heyne's _Russisch-Deutsch und Deutsch-Russ. Wörterb_, Riga 1795-98. The same writer's _Russ. Deutsch and Frauz. Wörterb_. in several forma and editions, Riga 1796 to 1812; also Moscow 1826; last improved edit. Leipz. Tauchn, 1844. Oldekop's _Russ.-Deutsch und Deutsch-Russ. Wörterb._ St. Pet. 1825. J.A.E. Schmidt's _Russ.-Deutsch und Deutsch-Russ. Wörterb_. Leipz. Tauchn, 1841. The same writer's _Poln. Russ. Deutsch. Wörterb_. 2 vols. 8vo. Breslau 1834-6.--FRENCH. Tatishtchefs _Nouveau Dict. Franc.-Russe_, etc. 2 vols. 8vo. Moscow 1832.]

* * * * *

CHAPTER II.

HISTORY OF THE ILLYRICO-SERVIAN LANGUAGE.