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 Archaeological Commission, have been mentioned above. It was first appointed in 1834; and considerably enlarged in 1837. The examination of ma.n.u.scripts 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 doc.u.ments which had preceded them. The Moscow Historical and Geographical Society, an older inst.i.tution, 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 cla.s.ses of society.

The new critical spirit of the times was first perceptible in the bold att.i.tude a.s.sumed by the editor of a periodical work, called the _Telegraph_. Polevoi was a self-made man, a merchant without cla.s.sical 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] PoG.o.din, 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 G.o.dunof, by Krayefski; of Peter II, by a.r.s.enief. Also a History of the time of troubles (as the period between Boris G.o.dunof 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 PoG.o.din, 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 princ.i.p.al 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 G.o.dunof, 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 a.n.a.logous 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 ent.i.tled "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.

PoG.o.din 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, j.a.pan, 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 n.o.bility 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 a.r.s.enyef 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, Bothlingk, 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 cla.s.sified 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, Ma.s.salski, 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 n.o.bility and ill.u.s.trious 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 b.a.l.l.s of the Therkesses.

He had been well known to his countrymen as the editor of a favourite Annual, ent.i.tled 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 princ.i.p.al 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 ent.i.tled 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 cla.s.s 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 pa.s.sed 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 Inst.i.tutes, 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 blase_. 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 _roues_ 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 G.o.dunof_, 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 n.o.ble 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 a.s.sign rather a lyric than a dramatic genius. The reverential attachment of Russians to their monarch is exhibited in the very t.i.tles 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. Koppen in 1825-26. The ephemeral race of _Annuals_, those vehicles of superficial taste and knowledge, early took broad possession of the Russian Parna.s.sus. 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 antic.i.p.ation 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 t.i.tles of this and of the other princ.i.p.al 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 ma.n.u.script in which the above poem was found, ent.i.tled _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 ma.n.u.script, 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 t.i.tles, but without interruption, until the reign of Alexis, father of Peter I.]