caused his people to overleap a whole century. If there is something
revolting to a liberal mind, in the despotic haste with which he
deprived a great nation at once of a part of their nationality,
through his arbitrary decision in all that he deemed best for them;
still it serves greatly to allay this feeling, to observe that the
resistance which he experienced did not proceed from the people, but
almost exclusively from the obstinate pride of a spoiled nobility, and
the narrow-minded policy of an ignorant and jealous priesthood. The
Russian nation itself is indeed, more than any other people,
susceptible of deep impressions. Hence they are in general not averse
to innovations; and were in Peter's time, as now, willing to be
conducted by a hand acknowledged as that of a superior. In
consequence of these very national qualities, good or bad, they are
capable of being readily moulded into any new form.

Whether the rapidity, nay, vehemence of the Tzar's improvements were a
real benefit to the nation, this is not the place to examine; but for
the free development of the language and literature, it is evident,
that his proceedings were injurious, notwithstanding their apparently
wonderful effect. Although the language possesses all the elements of
completeness, and notwithstanding the not inconsiderable mass of
talent which has developed itself in the course of time, the Russian
literature has perhaps not yet produced a single work of great and
decided _original_ value. The best works which they have, are
imitations; and he is the most distinguished writer whose discernment
leads him to choose the best model. No doubt, the present standing of
the Russian literature _in general_ would have been much lower, and
its extent especially would have been much smaller, than it now is,
had the Russian genius been permitted to break its own way through the
darkness; but there is still less doubt, that in this case it would
have preserved its original peculiarity, that wonderful blending of
the East and the West, of Asiatic suppleness and European energy, of
which their popular songs give such affecting, and in some cases
powerful specimens.

Peter, without delay, caused many books to be translated into Russian,
from the German, French, English, and Dutch languages. The haste
however with which this was performed, and the greater attention of
the Tzar to the _matter_ than to the _form_, had the natural
consequence, that most of these translations were miserable
productions, executed without the least regard for the language
itself. Peter's only object was to enable his subjects to become a
_reading_ people, and to communicate to them useful knowledge through
the medium of books. Beauties of style, and even mere purity of
language, belong in a certain measure to the luxuries of literature;
the Tzar thought only of utility.

These innovations in literature found of course a great many opponents
among the clergy; but there were some enlightened priests, among those
who held the highest standing in the church, who favoured in general
the Tzar's plan. The field of theology became somewhat more cultivated
during this period. Theophan Prokovitch, archbishop of Novogorod, ob.
1736, alone wrote sixty works, of which however only about half were
printed. He was Peter's faithful assistant; and not only his learning
and mental gifts, but his high moral character, gained him a decided
influence. He was styled the Russian Chrysostom.

The metropolitan of Rostof, called the holy Demetrius, ob. 1709, was
likewise a very productive theological writer. He was considered by
his contemporaries as a true pattern of Christianity; and was equally
distinguished for his learning. The metropolitan Stephen Javorsky, ob.
1722, was celebrated for his eloquence in the pulpit. Gabriel
Bushinsky, bishop of Rjazan and Murom, ob. 1731, was not only a
theological writer, but translated also works on history. A remarkable
example in this period, is Elias Kopiyevsky,[19] ob. 1701, who studied
theology in Holland, and became a protestant, and afterwards a pastor
at Amsterdam. He aided zealously in Peter's great work of
translations. Several historical and philological works translated by
him, were published by Tessing. Luther's Catechism was translated
about the same time by the pastor Glück of Livonia, who had been made
a prisoner by the Russians and carried to Moscow. It was in his house
that Catharine, the future empress of Russia, was brought up.[20]
Among the secular writers of this period, prince Antiochus Kantemir,
ob. 1745, must above all be mentioned. Of Greek extraction and born in
Constantinople, with all the advantages of an accomplished education,
and in full possession of several highly cultivated languages, he
nevertheless chose the Russian idiom for his poetical productions.
These are mostly satires, and evidently bear the stamp of a thorough
knowledge of the classics. Besides these he wrote on different
subjects of natural philosophy; and translated a selection from the
Epistles of Horace, and Fontenelle's work on the plurality of worlds.
About the same time, Leont. Magnitzky wrote the first Russian
Arithmetic with Arabic numerals.

Among the lyric poets two Kozaks, Cyril Danilof and Semen Klimofsky,
are named with some distinction. The first of the two, better known
under the diminutive of his name, _Kirsha_ Danilof, deserves
particular attention. The Russians have their cyclus of heroic
legends, as well as the occidental nations. Vladimir and his Boyars
are to them what Arthur and his Round table, Charlemagne and his
twelve peers, are to Britons, Franks, and Germans. These traditions
lived still among the people in Kirsha Danilof's time; and yet live to
some extent as nursery tales. Kirsha versified them; and, we fear,
changed them according to the spirit of his time. They have only been
printed and published in the present century, at least seventy-five
years after they were written; for Kirsha was a cotemporary of Peter
I. It is no doubt to him, that we owe their preservation through an
age of a false and pedantic taste, which could only have despised
these relics of barbarism, and during which they were forgotten by the
Frenchified literati.[21] In historical contributions this period is
not wholly poor; but as the writers paid not the slightest attention
to style, or did not know from what principles to begin, the language
remained entirely uncultivated. There was as yet no thought of a
Russian _Grammar_. In poetry the system of rhymed verses, in which the
syllables were not measured, but counted, in imitation of the Poles,
reigned exclusively. Meanwhile the popular songs held faithfully to
the old Russian irregular but highly musical numbers, consulting only
the ear. Trediakofsky, born 1703, was the first who examined more
closely the nature of the language, and advised the adoption of the
classical metres founded on quantity. He applied on this point merely
the principles which Zizania and Smotrisky, nearly a century before,
had established for the Old Slavic idiom, and with equal propriety.
But, as the talent for illustrating his rules by good examples was
wanting in him, he made very little impression; and his name and
endeavours were soon forgotten.[22]

THIRD PERIOD.

_From Lomonosof to Karamzin, A.D._1741--1796.

We have now reached the epoch from which the temple of Russian
literature, as it appears at present, must be dated. It was Peter's
hand that laid the corner-stone; it was Lomonosof who raised it above
the ground; whilst the fortunate turns of Elizabeth's and Catharine's
vanity caused it to be filled with more worshippers than would
otherwise ever have sought the way thither. Academies were founded for
the sciences and arts; numerous institutions for the education of all
classes and ages were created and endowed with true imperial
magnificence. In the year 1758 the university of Moscow was founded;
while other scientific institutions of all descriptions were
established by Catharine's unbounded liberality. In the year 1783 the
free establishment of printing offices was permitted; of course not
without reserving to the government the privilege of a strict
censorship. A seminary for educating teachers for popular schools was
erected, with the intention of founding Gymnasia all over the country.
These measures, no doubt, had an essential and beneficial influence on
the general civilization of the nation. But the common people, the
peasantry, remained entirely neglected.

It was however in a family of the lowest standing, that Michael
Lomonosof was born, A.D. 1711. His father was a fisherman in the
government of Archangel. During the long winters, when his father's
trade was interrupted, Lomonosof learned to read of one of the church
servants. The beauties of the Bible, and the singing of the Psalms
during the church service, in the rhymed translation of Simeon of
Polotzk, first awakened his own poetical faculties. An ardent desire
for an education caused him to leave home privately and seek his way
to Moscow, where, he was told, was an institution, in which foreign
languages were taught. Circumstances proved fortunate; he found
liberal patrons; was educated afterwards in Kief and St. Petersburg,
and obtained means to go to Germany. Here he connected philosophy with
the mathematical studies which he had hitherto chiefly pursued;
devoted a part of his time to the science of mining, at the
celebrated school in Freiburg; and sat in Marburg at the feet of the
philosopher Wolf. In passing through Brunswick, he escaped with
difficulty the horrors of the Prussian military system. He succeeded
in reaching Holland, and thence returned to his own country; where he
was well received and honourably employed by the government. He died
A.D. 1765, in the enjoyment of high general esteem, but not that
degree of reputation which has been allotted to him by a more
judicious posterity. He first ventured to draw a distinct boundary
line between the Old Slavic and the Russian languages; which hitherto
had been confounded in a most intolerable manner. In his Russian
Grammar, he first laid down principles and fixed rules for the general
compass of the language; without however checking the influence of the
Church Slavonic more than was necessary, in order to preserve the
identity of the former. He wrote a sketch of Russian History, a long
and tedious epic poem called the _Petreide_, speeches, odes,
tragedies, and several works on chemistry and mineralogy. None of his
productions are without merit; but he was more a man of sagacity and
strong talent, than of poetical genius. His poems are all cold and
artificial; excepting perhaps his version of a few chapters of the
book of Job, where the beauties of the original appear to have
inspired him. His speeches and odes are written in the same style of
panegyric, which then reigned, and which reigns still, in all the
creations of Russian poetry or prose having the least reference to the
imperial family; and which, in connection with the boastful style of
all productions purporting to describe national deeds, is a real
blemish upon the Russian literature, fitted to render it disgusting to
all foreigners.[23]

The two most celebrated writers among Lomonosof's cotemporaries,
though somewhat younger than he, were Alexander Sumarokof, ob. 1777,
and Michael Kheraskof, born 1733, ob. 1807. Both were very productive
writers in prose and poetry, overwhelming the reading public with
tragedies and comedies, odes and epistles; and the latter also with
two long epic poems, one in twelve, and the other in eighteen cantos!
Both were highly admired, and the overflowings of their pens were
devoured with avidity. Kheraskof was called the Russian Homer. The
childhood, in which Russian literature then was, is not the age of
criticism; sounder judges of later times have allotted to those
productions a place hardly above mediocrity.

The first Russian theatre was instituted in Jaroslav. A.D. 1746. The
permission, which the actors obtained A.D. 1754, to establish
themselves in St. Petersburg, and still more the foundation of a
national stage in Moscow in 1759, served much to awaken the decided
dramatic talent of the Russians; a faculty in which they are perhaps
incomparable, and certainly are not surpassed by any other nation.
Several gifted literary men employed themselves in writing for the
stage. Such were J. Knjashnin, ob. 1791, an imitator of the French,
but not without talent of his own; Von Wisin, ob. 1792, the author of
two comedies, full of genuine comic power; Maïkof, Nicolef, Klushin,
etc. The distinguished productions of Von Wisin alone have continued
to hold possession of the stage.[24]

As the most prominent poets of a miscellaneous character the following
may be mentioned: Hippolit Bagdanovitch, born 1743, ob. 1805, author
of a tale in verse, _Dushenka_, Psyche, not without gracefulness and
_naiveté_; Chemnitzer, ob. 1784, the writer of the best Russian
fables; Gabriel Dershavin, born 1743, ob. 1816, the most celebrated
Russian poet of his time. The glory of Catharine II, and of the
Russian army, was his favourite theme; but even the panegyrical style
of his odes, the most dangerous enemy not only of moral, but likewise
of poetical truth, cannot destroy the power of his truly poetical
genius. His ode _To God_ has obtained the distinction of being
translated not only into several European languages, but also into
Chinese, and hung up in the emperor's palace, printed with golden
letters on white satin.[25] Further, Vasilii Kapnist, born 1756, ob.
1823, who as a lyrical poet stands next to Dershavin; Bobrof,
familiarly acquainted with English literature, which he endeavoured to
imitate, full of imagination, but bombastic and obscure; Prince
Dolgoruky. distinguished by a philosophical vein; Neledinsky-Meletzky,
whose songs are known even by the lower classes.

During this period also the field of translation was not less
cultivated. Kostrof translated the Iliad in rhymed verses, A.D. 1787,
and also Macpherson's Ossian from the French. Petrof gave a version of
the Æneid in 1793. Bulgakof first made the Russian public acquainted
with Ariosto; Popovsky with Pope and Locke, etc.--As a writer of
general and favourable influence on literature, we must not forget to
name N. Novikof, editor of several periodical journals, author of the
first Russian bibliographical work, and a man of that general literary
activity, which, even without productiveness of its own, induces
others to exercise theirs.

The patriotism which caused the Russians ever to pay a certain
degree of attention to their national history, deserves the highest
praise. During all periods of their literature, this branch has been
attended to with diligence. It is however especially the laborious
collection and faithful preservation of materials, for which posterity
is indebted to them; since there is little of a philosophical spirit
to be found in their arrangement of these materials; and in regard to
the language in which they are presented, it is striking to observe
how the Russian prose was always far behind the Russian poetry. G.F.
Müller, ob. 1783, a German by birth, but who devoted all his life to
Russian literature, published the first Russian periodical, dedicated
chiefly to historical objects.[26] He also caused several old
manuscripts to be printed; and added greatly to their value by his
investigations and commentaries. Prince Shtsherbatof wrote fifteen
volumes of Russian history, besides several smaller works,--a mere
collection of facts, but rendered more important by a review and
criticism upon them by Boltin, ob. 1792, a distinguished historian.
Tchulkof wrote a history of commerce; Jemin, Rytchkof, Golikof, and
others, wrote on particular portions of Russian history.

For the philological studies of the language, the foundation of the
Russian Academy. A.D. 1783, was of great importance. A standard
grammar and etymological dictionary were published by it in 1787-90,
founded on a plan perfectly new, and in the merit of which the empress
Catharine had no small personal share. Her example awakened not a
few Mecænases among the _magnates_ of the country; and it became a
point of high ambition to favour literature and literary men.[27]

As for theological and biblical science, scarcely any thing
interesting, certainly nothing gratifying, meets our eye in this vast
deserted field. Except a few didactic works on dogmatics and rhetoric,
several catechisms and similar productions, this department is limited
exclusively to sermons, or rather synodal discourses. There is not
always a want of talent, and sometimes even a rich share of natural
power; but the language, though first developed in similar
productions, is here so full of bombastic, tasteless, and mere
rhetorical ornaments, that the _thought_ seems to be entirely drowned
in them.

Demetrius Sjetchinof, metropolitan of Novogorod, ob. 1767, and the
archbishop of White Russia, Konissky, oh. 1795, are considered as not
being without eloquence. Platon Levshin, metropolitan of Moscow, was
the most productive of the ecclesiastical writers. He died in 1812,
and continued to write until the end of his life; his productions
consequently, in respect to time, belong partly to the next period of
Russian literature.[28] Anastasius Bratanofski, archbishop of
Astrachan, ob. 1806, takes the first place among Russian
ecclesiastical orators, in respect to style and command of language;
though higher powers and profounder feelings are ascribed to an
arch-priest of Kief, Ivan Levanda, ob. 1814. Here our catalogue
terminates. All the remaining ecclesiastical writers of any
distinction, although only a few years younger than those here
mentioned, seem in respect to language to belong to the following
period.

FOURTH PERIOD.

_From Karamzin, A.D._ 1796, _to the commencement of the reign of the
emperor Nicholas in_ 1825.

The number of Russian writers increases during this period so
considerably, that we feel more than ever obliged to limit ourselves
to the most distinguished; thus, no doubt, passing over in silence
many a name more deserving to be mentioned than others of the
preceding periods, which borrowed a comparative lustre only from the
poverty of the times.

The emperor Alexander, during the first years of his reign, showed a
zeal for the mental cultivation and enlightenment of his subjects,
which presented him to the eyes of admiring Europe in the light of one
of the great benefactors of mankind. Whoever will take the trouble to
follow the career of this prince closely, and contrast the shouts of
acclamation with which the world hailed him at first, with the
disesteem into which the same individual a few years afterwards
shrunk, as a weak and insignificant being,--and then again compare the
enthusiasm with which during the time of his better fortunes he was
received anew as the deliverer of Europe, with the part which was
afterwards assigned him in the system of _obscurantismus_ supposed to
be adopted by the united sovereigns of Europe,--whoever considers all
this, cannot but be struck with the small portion of discernment and
discrimination which is manifested in the world. A sober and
keen-sighted observer might have seen even in the beginning, glorious
as it was, that not all is gold that glitters. All that was done, was
accompanied with a noise and boasting which strangely imposed upon
foreigners. Universities, on the plan of the venerable institutions of
learning in Germany, were founded, where all the preparation necessary
in order to profit by them was wanting; and the profoundest sciences
were professedly taught to pupils, who were still deficient even in
elementary knowledge. We do not however mean to say, that much real
good was not done; and even if some of the new institutions were not
propitious in their immediate results, still the time has come, or
will come, when all of them are or will be at least in a measure
useful. The establishment of numerous common schools of a less
elevated character throughout the whole empire, deserves unqualified
praise. More than fifty higher schools, called gymnasia or
governmental schools, and twice as many lower or provincial schools,
were established under Alexander's reign alone.[29]

Besides the universities, eight in all, of which Alexander founded
five, there are a considerable number of professional schools; among
which are four theological academies. In the year 1823, an Institution
for the study of oriental languages was founded at St. Petersburg; and
in 1829 a similar one at Odessa, a city which has by its location more
natural advantages for the learning of Asiatic languages than any
other, and where for most of them native teachers may be readily
obtained. On the other hand, the Asiatic Museum, attached to the
school at St. Petersburg, contains all the means and aids for those
studies to be met with at a more remote place. Richly endowed by the
munificence of the emperor Alexander, who caused scientific treasures
of every kind to be liberally purchased, it was also greatly augmented
during the late war with Persia; where by order of the emperor all
conquered cities were deprived of their libraries, whether public or
private; while, by a stipulation in the treaty of peace, the Persian
government was compelled to deliver to Russia towards four hundred
manuscripts, a list of which was drawn up by the orientalists Frähn
and Senkofsky. Among these were the geography of Ptolemy, and several
Arabic translations of Greek and Latin works, lost in the original
languages. Although the object of the oriental schools in Russia was
originally to educate translators for diplomatic missions, they have
proved themselves very useful to oriental philology in general;
especially through the many gifted Germans in the Russian service, who
avail themselves gladly of opportunities for those studies which their
own country cannot give. It will however be seen in the sequel, that
several learned Russians also have paid an honourable attention to
this branch, especially within the last twenty years.

The Russian Bible Society, founded A.D. 1813. was at first patronized
by the emperor. Under its auspices, and at the instigation of the
emperor himself, there was prepared a version of the Scriptures in the
Russian dialect. In the year 1820, not less than 50,000 copies of the
Gospels and the Acts were issued from the press; in 1823 the whole New
Testament was finished, and in the course of eight months 20,000
copies were distributed. For this translation the peasantry, to whom
the Old Slavic church Bible was only half intelligible, showed such an
eagerness, as soon to excite trouble among the clergy. In some of the
governments, remote from the capital, the readers of this version of
the Bible had to encounter serious persecution. In respect to
translations into foreign languages, a kind of rivalship arose between
the parent society in England and the daughter in St. Petersburg.
Besides the preparation by the latter of translations into
_thirty-one_ different languages and dialects within the limits of the
Russian empire, she likewise took care of several Asiatic nations,
and founded auxiliaries in the deserts of Siberia, and also in the
midst of the Kozaks of the Don and the Circassian provinces. In A.D.
1820, this society had fifty-three sections and 145 auxiliaries; and
the number of copies of whole Bibles and of New Testaments
distributed, exceeded 430,000. But in 1822, the society held its last
aniversary; and three years later, some of the more important Russian
clergy succeeded in closing the series of annual reports. In April
1826, the activity of the society was ultimately terminated, or, as it
was expressed, _was suspended_, by the Ukase of the emperor Nicholas,
at the instigation of the metropolitans Eugene and Seraphim. Since
that time, only the sale of the copies already printed has been
permitted.[30]

The Russian Bible Society stood of course in connection with societies
for Foreign Missions; but was active in this respect chiefly through
the agency of the United or Moravian Brethren. In 1823 the Moravians
of Sarepta sent, with the express consent of the minister of
Ecclesiastical Affairs, two missionaries to the Kalmuks; into whose
language the Gospels had been translated at St. Petersburg by Schmidt.
In the same degree that they found the people susceptible for divine
truth, did they meet with opposition from the priesthood. The Khans,
yielding to the influence of the priests, threatened to emigrate; and
the Russian government found it advisable to withdraw the mission. An
interesting report of this mission was published in 1824, in the
Journal of St. Petersburg. In the year 1824, a mission of the Greek
church, at the instigation of the bishop of Archangel, was sent to the
Samoyedes. This was the first attempt ever made to convert that
savage people to Christianity; of the results we are not informed.

The compass of Russian literature extended itself during the course of
Alexander's reign, or rather from A.D. 1800 to 1822, with a most
remarkable rapidity. In the year 1787 the number of books written in
the Old Slavonic and Russian dialects, did not exceed 4000;[31] before
1820 twice that number was counted; the year 1820 alone produced 3400
works, 800 of them translations from the French, 483 from the German,
and more than 100 from the English. Sopikof, in his bibliographical
essay, enumerates the titles of 13,240 Russian and Slavonic books,
printed in Russia from A.D. 1552 to 1823. But at this time literature
seems to have reached its height in respect to productiveness; and
sunk again with a still greater rapidity, probably in consequence of
the political measures of the government. The year 1824 produced only
264 Russian works. The yearly average of literary productions,
original and translated, from 1800 to that time, is about 300 to 400.
This number perhaps will not strike the reader as so very small, if he
is informed that in the whole eighteenth century only 1000 works were
printed. Three hundred and fifty living authors were enumerated in the
year 1822; mostly belonging to the nobility, and only one eighth part
to the clergy. Their literary activity towards the end of this period,
and at the commencement of the next, was in a great measure confined
to works of fiction; especially novels end lyrical poetry. But at this
time a deeper interest in their national history began to be awakened.
This department indeed had never been entirely neglected; and more
than 10,000 manuscripts, unopened and unexamined, lay scattered
throughout the imperial and monastic libraries.

Nicholas Karamzin, from the commencement of whose influence this
period of Russian literature is in general dated, was born A.D. 1765.
He was educated in the house of a German professor at Moscow. In spite
of the early development of his literary propensities, he entered the
military service, which was then considered as the most honourable in
Russia. After two years spent in travelling through Europe, he opened
his literary career with the publication of a periodical work called
the Moscow Journal, which exercised a decidedly favourable influence
on Russian literature; although those productions of Karamzin himself,
which first appeared in this journal, evidently bear the stamp of the
author's youth. Both in his prose writings and in his scattered
lyrical poems, at this period, there is a certain dulcet
sentimentality, behind which we look in vain for energetic or true
poetic thoughts. He showed more maturity in his second periodical,
called the European Messenger; where political and moral subjects
occupied his pen. But his principal reputation rests upon his History
of the Russian Empire. In composing this work, he was greatly favoured
by the government; all the archives were opened to him; all documents
delivered into his hands; and when it was completed, rewards and
gratuities of every description were heaped upon the author with
imperial munificence, and continued to his widow and children after
his decease in 1826. [32]

The beauties of Karamzin's style are so entirely _idiomatic,_ that no
one, who is not perfectly and thoroughly acquainted with the language,
is able to appreciate in what the charm of his writings consists. To
foreigners of sound critical taste, on the contrary, the productions
of his early life exhibit an affectation, a pretension to feeling, and
an emptiness of original thought, sometimes quite intolerable. And as
to the more condensed and exact style of his great historical work,
even the highest beauties of diction, and the acknowledged diligence
and accuracy of the writer's examination of facts, could never
reconcile us to that _want of truth_, which, without wresting the fact
itself, impresses upon it a false character by the whole colouring and
mode of representation. Over the characteristic barbarism of ancient
times his dexterous hand throws a veil of embellishment, and lends a
spirit of chivalry and romantic charm to historical persons and deeds,
where all the circumstances of place and time stand in absolute
contradiction to it. Not seldom do we seem to be perusing a novel.

By this mode of proceeding he of course flattered the national
feelings of his countrymen; and thus gained their approbation and
applause, in the same measure that he disgusted all other nations. His
History of Russia will nevertheless remain a standard work in Slavic
literature, partly on account of the copiousness of its sources,
partly because of the great learning and research displayed by its
author.

In respect to Karamzin's innovations on the language, his influence
was early counterbalanced. He considered the French or English mode of
construction as better adapted to the present state of the Russian
language, than that imitation of the classical structure, which had
hitherto given to the Russian prose writings so stiff and awkward an
air. He himself adopted with ease and gracefulness the peculiarities
of these modern languages; but a portion of his followers thought to
reach the same object by introducing Gallicisms. Just at the proper
time an opposition was formed; the head of which, Admiral Shishkof,
insisted upon preserving the influence of the Church Slavonic upon the
Russian language; and reproached Karamzin with having injured the
purity of the latter by the introduction of foreign forms. These two
parties, which still divide the Russian literature in some measure,
are called the _Russian_ and _Slavonic_, or also the Moscow and St.
Petersburg parties.

Not much less influence than Karamzin on the Russian prose, has Ivan
Dmitrief, born 1760, exercised on poetry. He had more taste and purity
than any of his predecessors; and was the first to prove by a great
many poetical tales, fables, odes, etc. that imagination and
correctness of language are not incompatible. The most successful of
his followers are the following:

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.

SECTION I.

LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE OF THE ILLYRICO-SERVIANS PROPER.

The literature of the western Slavo-Servians has hitherto been
altogether separated from that of their brethren of the oriental
church, and treated as a distinct branch.[1] Their language, however,
being essentially the same, we do not see why the rather accidental
circumstance, that the former use the Roman letters, while the latter
adhere to the Cyrillic alphabet, should be a sufficient reason for
such a separation. The literature of neither of them has as yet
treasures enough, to renounce willingly the claims which their mutual
and naturally rich though uncultivated language gives to the one upon
the productions of the other. We now proceed, in a short historical
introduction, to show the origin of this separation; after making a
few preliminary remarks on the character of the language as a whole,
unaffected by its division into different dialects, not more distinct
indeed from each other than is the case in almost every other living
idiom.

The Servian language is spoken by about five millions of people. It
extends, with some slight variations of dialect, over the Turkish and
Austrian provinces of Servia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Montenegro, and
Dalmatia; over Slavonia and the eastern part of Croatia. It is further
the property of several thousands, who emigrated from their own
country on account of the Turkish oppression, and are now settled as
colonists along the south-western bank of the Danube, from Semlin to
St. André near Buda. The southern sky, and the beauties of natural
scenery existing throughout nearly all these regions, so favourable in
general to the development of poetical genius, appear also to have
exerted a happy influence on the language. While it yields to none
of the other Slavic dialects in richness, clearness, and precision,
it far surpasses all of them in euphony. The Servian has often been
called the _Italian_ among the other Slavic idioms. Comparisons of
this sort are always superficial, and tend to give a false view of the
character of an object. Be this as it may, the Servian is decidedly
the most melodious of the Slavic languages, rich in vowels, and
abounding alike in soft and powerful accents. The accumulation of
consonants, with which the other dialects are so often reproached, is
rarely, if ever, to be met with in Servian. The reader may compare the
Servian _wetar_ with _wjtr_, _krilo_ with _krzydlo_ or _skrzydlo, pao_
with _padl_, etc. Those who ascribe this mildness of the Servian
language to the Italian neighbourhood of Dalmatia, forget that the
eastern Servians are remote from Italy. It is true that the dialects
of these latter are at the same time full of Turcisms; but these are
mere excrescences, which may easily be removed without touching the
essential structure of the language. The Turkish words adopted into
the Servian, are mostly nouns, and verbs derived from them; and may
naturally be explained by their political relation to the Turks during
so many centuries. If we may confide in a remark of the profound
philologist J. Grimm, _some_ foreign ingredients are useful and even
necessary to languages. They act as a cement, and fill up gaps; nay,
they not seldom serve to give to the expression colouring and pliancy.
The attention of the civilized world, although directed at the
beginning of the present century to the Servians and their heroic
struggles, has only recently been excited in respect to their
language; and this through the efforts of a single individual. We
shall have more to say on this point in the section devoted to the
literature of the Servians of the eastern church.

The ancient Illyricum comprised all the countries situated between the
Adriatic and the Black Sea, and along the Danube and Save.[2]
Towards the middle of the seventh century, we find this vast country
mostly occupied by a Slavic people of one and the same race,
alternately called Bulgarians, Croatians, and Servians. We find also
six kingdoms gradually established by them: Bulgaria, Servia, Bosnia
(Rama), Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia; some of them powerful and of
great influence in their time, but now and long since sunk into ruin,
and existing only as Turkish or Austrian provinces. An impenetrable
night rests on the early history of these regions; and if the
judicious criticism of modern philologists has thrown comparatively
some light on this general topic, still, their investigations have
been of little consequence for the history of the language. All that
it concerns us to note here, is, that as early as the seventh century
a part of these nations were already Christians, converted by Romish
priests. Among the remainder, Christianity as taught by Greek
missionaries found a welcome reception in the eighth and ninth
centuries, and soon was fully established. The oriental Servians had
the chief seat of their power in the present Turkish province of
Serf-Vilayeti; and governed by princes called _Shupans_, we see them
in a constant war of resistance against the Greek emperors, and during
several centuries also against the powerful Khans of Bulgaria; now
conquered, subjugated, destroyed almost to annihilation, but
recovering with effort and rising again in power, with such energy as
to enable them under the great Tzar, Stephan Dushan, not only to hold
all their neighbours in awe, but to take a menacing position towards
Byzantium itself, and dictate conditions of peace to the imploring
envoys of that proud imperial court. But this brilliant point of
Servian glory, which even now after five hundred years still lives in
the hearts of the people, and is the subject of a thousand legends and
songs, was only a meteor. It vanished in almost the same moment that
it appeared. Stephan's immediate successors, enfeebled by their
domestic dissensions, sunk under the superior forces of the Turks, who
had broken into Europe thirty-four years earlier. They soon became the
conquerors of the Servians, though not without fierce and bloody
struggles; and they still remain their masters and oppressors.[3]

The western Servians were early divided into small states, some of
which adopted an aristocratic republican form of constitution. Among
these, only the republic of Ragusa requires to be mentioned here, as
the cradle of the Dalmatian branch of Servian literature. The local
situation of these western states made them dependent on Hungary; and
thus Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, sometimes under the title of
kingdoms, and now as dukedoms, became at length mere provinces of that
larger kingdom, and ultimately of the Austrian empire. Bosnia and
Herzegovina, which form the boundary between the Servians of the East
and West, were subject to the influence of both; and are to the
present day divided in religion and in language.

1. _Literature of the Servians of the Oriental or Greek Church_.

However small the circuit of country, properly called Servia, is in
proportion to the whole extent over which the southern Slavi are
spread, the name of Servians nevertheless appears to modern
philologists as the best adapted for being employed as the common name
of them all. Dobrovsky thinks it even appropriate to become the
general appellation for all Slavic nations. Although of obscure
derivation, it is at least sufficiently ascertained that it is of pure
Slavic origin; glorious associations are attached to it; it is
moreover still a living name, while the learned appellation of
_Illyrians_, formerly more in use, is dead; and that of _Bosnians_,
preferred by some Dalmatian writers, rests upon no satisfactory
grounds. The name of Servians, however, was never, till recently,
applied to the Dalmatians. It is indeed still rejected by themselves;
and they continue to call themselves _Illyrians_.

Under the present head, besides the Servians proper, of whom great
numbers have emigrated in early times to Hungary, are also strictly
comprised the Bosnians, the greater portion of the inhabitants of
Herzegovina, the Montenegrins or Czernogortzi, and the Slavonians of
the Greek Church. These all use the same language and alphabet; but
the four latter have no distinct literature, except some collections
of popular poetry.

The literature of the eastern Servians, the result of their
intellectual life as a nation, does not yet date back a hundred years;
nay, if regarded from another point of view, it is not yet forty years
old. Up to that time, all the Servians belonging to the Greek Church,
notwithstanding the honourable example of Russia to the contrary, had
written in the Old or Church Slavonic; or, in more modern times, in a
language mixed up from this latter and several other dialects.
Schaffarik remarks, that out of about 400 Servian books printed
between the years 1742, or more properly 1761, and 1826, about one
eighth part are written in Old Slavic; another eighth in the common
dialect of the people; while all the rest vary between these two in
innumerable shades and degrees.[4] This eighth part written in
ordinary Servian, and essentially the same language which the
Dalmatians and the greater part of the Croats speak, are all of very
recent date. Indeed, with the exception of a single writer,
Obradovitch, who found no immediate followers, the dialect of the
people was in general despised by the clergy and those who laid claim
to education, as being wholly unfit for books, and (as Vuk
Stephanovitch strongly expresses himself) only proper for "cowherds
and swineherds." How the once flourishing literature of Ragusa could
ever have sunk into oblivion to such a degree, is hardly to be
conceived; as indeed, in general, the division so sharply drawn in
respect to literature between those two branches of the same people,
while they were still bound together by the strong ties of one and the
same language of common life and in part also of the same government,
belongs among the most remarkable facts in literary history.

The most ancient document of the Servian Old Slavic language, is out
of the middle of the thirteenth century, viz. the Hexaemeron of
Basilius, with a preface by John, exarch of Bulgaria. Then follow the
"Acts of the Apostles," written by the hieromonach Damian, A.D. 1324.
Of higher historical importance are some secular writings from the end
of the thirteenth to the middle of the fourteenth century, viz. a
genealogical register of the Servian princes and the events of their
reigns, called _Radoslov_, written by archbishop Daniel; a similar
work called the _Tzarostavnick_; and above all the statutes of Tzar
Dushan the Powerful, A.D. 1336-56. These statutes, dated from the year
6837, or A.D. 1349, not only afford us a good survey of the
constitution of the Servian kingdom, but are a remarkable contribution
to the history of its moral state at that early period, The
philanthropist cannot but perceive, with satisfaction, the rare union
that reigns in these laws of stern justice and true Christian
benevolence, attempting to alleviate those evils which it was not in
the power of an individual to abolish,--thehardships of slavery, the
insecurity of property peculiar to those barbarous times, and those
rash and bloody acts of self-protection, which are preferred by the
powerful all over the world to the slower steps of avenging justice.
It is indeed remarkable to observe, how these statutes not only
counteracted the grosser vices and crimes, (which for the most part is
the only object of laws,) but also favoured the characteristic virtues
of the times, for instance hospitality. One statute ordains, that when
a traveller asked for night-quarters at the dwelling of a landed
proprietor and was not admitted, he had the right to take lodgings in
his village wherever he pleased; and did he lose any thing, not his
host, but the proprietor who had refused to harbour him, was bound to
remunerate the loss.[5]

The monks of this and the following centuries must have written a
great deal; as is proved by the many manuscripts that still lie
accumulated in the numerous Servian and Macedonian monasteries,--the
mere remnant of those which perished in the long tempests of bloody
wars and desolating conflagrations. About fifty years after the
invention of printing, some of the church books from time to time were
published in Servia and Syrmia. The earliest Servian print extant is
from the year 1493, viz. an Octateuch, published at Zenta in
Herzegovina. In Russia they did not begin to print until sixty years
later. In 1552 the Gospels were printed in Belgrade; in 1562 another
edition in Negromont. But these faint signs of life soon became
extinct; and we hear no longer of the least trace of literature among
the Servians of the Turkish empire. Among the Austrian Servians also,
literature seems to have been equally dead; with the exception of a
History of Servia, written and left in manuscript by George
Brankovitch, the last despot of that country, towards the close of the
seventeenth century. A genealogical work published by Dshefarovitch at
Vienna in 1742, had to be engraved, for the want of proper types. In
the year 1755, under the reign of Maria Theresa, when some attention
began to be paid to the schools of her Illyrian provinces, the
archbishop of Carlovitz was compelled to have Smotrisky's Grammar[6]
printed in Walachia, because no Slavic types were to be found in the
whole Austrian empire. Some years afterwards, A.D. 1758, a private
Slavic press was founded at Venice. In Austria, Cyrillic-Slavonic
books could not be printed earlier than A.D. 1771, when a printing
office was established at Vienna; the monopoly of which for all
Slavo-Servian scientific works throughout the empire, was given to the
university of Buda. From this one point, therefore, the whole literary
cultivation of the Servians of the oriental church in the Austrian
empire, could alone proceed.[7]

After the partial revival of Servian literature in 1758, a
considerable number of works were composed; and there are among them
not a few, which, notwithstanding the mixed and unsettled idiom in
which they are written, attest the general capacity of the nation, and
may serve as imperfect specimens of the mass of talent buried there.
Among the historical writers, we must name above all J. Raitch. He
wrote on many different subjects; and also left behind him a whole
library of theological manuscripts. His 'History of the Slavic
Nations'[8] has given him a lasting reputation. Other historical
writers of some merit, are, Kengelatz, Magarashevitch, Julinatz,
Solaritch.[9] Writers on different subjects of natural philosophy and
medicine, are, Orphelin, Stoïkovitch, Beritch, Jankovitch, P.
Hadshitch, etc. On statistics and geography the above-mentioned
Solaritch, Vuitch, Bulitch, Popovitch, and others. In the department
of theology, we hardly meet with a single book of a doctrinal
character; but there are quite a number on ethics. The principal
writers of the language, therefore, may perhaps be more properly
arranged under the heads of philosophy (comprehending logic),
rhetoric, ethics, etc. as Obradovitch, Raitch, Terlaitch, Lazarevitch,
Vuitch, Davidovitch, Masovitch, etc.[10]

Poetry and belles-lettres being more dependent on the state of the
language than purely scientific works, we can proceed no further,
without first making our readers acquainted with the recent
innovations of a few patriotic individuals.

It was Dositheï Obradovitch, born A.D. 1739 in the Banat of Temeswar,
who first among the eastern Servians ventured to write books in the
despised language of the country. The fortunes of this person are, in
several respects, of uncommon interest. Brought up in a monastic
school, he became monk when he was only fourteen years old. After
several years of severe struggles, he fled. For twenty-five years he
travelled over all Europe; and then returned to his comparatively
barbarous native land, where he died in 1811, as inspector of the
schools, and the instructor of the children of the celebrated Kara
George. He left several works.

A far greater influence, however, has been exerted on Servian
literature by Dem. Davidovitch and Vuk Stephanovitch Karadshitch, who
have not only followed the same literary course, but were the first to
defend both theoretically and practically the principle, that the
Servians ought to _write_ as they _speak_. Their boldness met with
strong and decided opposition from the old school; and the contest and
rivalry which have been the consequence, although tending for a time
to prevent the progress of the good cause, cannot but have, ere long,
beneficial results, by exciting the minds of the people to a higher
activity than they have had until then occasion to exert.

Davidovitch published from 1814 to 1822 a Servian newspaper in Vienna,
not exclusively of a political character, by which he intended to
diffuse information on various subjects; the first undertaking of the
kind in his language. His influence however is not confined to the
language alone; as secretary of Prince Milosh, then at the head of the
Servians, his influence on the general cultivation of his countrymen
was very decided.

Vuk Stephanovitch Karadshitch, born 1786 in Turkish Servia, is the
author of the first Oriental-Servian grammar and dictionary; and in
the arrangement of the former has manifested the true spirit of a
genuine grammarian. Besides these he has written several works of
value, a biography of Prince Milosh, a series of annuals, a volume on
the Proverbs, and idiomatic phrases of the Servians, etc.[11] But the
best proof which he could give of the beauty, richness, and
perfectibility of the vulgar Servian dialect, is his Collection of
the Servian popular Songs, in four volumes, comprising nevertheless
only about the fourth or fifth part of the similar treasures hidden
among the mountains of his country. In making this collection, he very
judiciously wrote down only those songs which he had himself caught
from the lips of the Servian peasantry. There had already been a
rumour among the literati of Europe, for more than fifty years, of the
beauty and singularity of the Illyrian national songs, founded mostly
on the communications of Italian travellers and the citations of
Dalmatian dictionaries. Herder, in his valuable Collection of popular
Poetry, gave two historical fragments from the work of a Dalmatian
clergyman, A. Cacich.[12] Goethe also has a beautiful tale, taken from
Abbate Fortis' Travels among the Morlachians. Both translated by means
of the French; and although this double translation could not possibly
do justice to the originals, they were sufficiently admired. But when
Vuk's collection appeared, and a part of its contents was made
intelligible to the civilized world by a translation attempted by the
author of this work, imperfect and deficient as any translation of
popular poetry must necessarily ever be, the public and the critics
were nevertheless alike struck with the strong expression of the high
and incomparable beauties of nature. All that the other Slavic
nations, or the Germans, the Scotch, and the Spaniards, possess of
popular poetry, can at the utmost be compared with the lyrical part of
the Servian songs, called by them _female_ songs, because they are
sung only by females and youths; but the long epic extemporized
compositions, by which a peasant bard, sitting in a large circle of
other peasants, in unpremeditated but perfectly regular and harmonious
verse, celebrates the heroic deeds of their ancestors or
cotemporaries, has no parallel in the whole history of literature
since the days of Homer.[13]

Vuk Stephanovitch Karadshitc,[14] in his successful attempts to
reduce a language, which hitherto had been merely an unwritten dialect
of the common people, to certain general rules and principles, had,
besides the more philosophical part of the work, also to adapt the
Slavonic alphabet to his purpose. The mixed and unregulated language,
which up to his time had been employed, had been written alternately
with the Old Slavonic and the Russian letters. To the Russian
language, with its multitude of sounds, the latter is perfectly
suitable; in Servian, however, several letters could be easily spared;
while others had to be added. Some change of the alphabet seemed
therefore necessary. As those Servians among whom Vuk was born, and
among whom chiefly he had gathered the treasures of remarkable poetry,
which serve as so beautiful a base to their young literature, all
belonged to the Greek or Oriental Church, he seems never to have
thought of the possibility of adopting the Latin alphabet, which had
already served for several centuries for the once flourishing
literature of their Catholic brethren, who spoke essentially the same
language.

We are ready to acknowledge that the Slavic alphabet, as arranged by
Vuk, is better adapted to express the sounds of the Slavic languages,
than the Latin; it is at once simpler and richer. But we nevertheless
cannot help regretting, that he did not yield to the various reasons,
which on the other side spoke in favour of the Latin alphabet. It was
already used by some millions for the same language, and had been so
for centuries. It would have given a _history_ to the young Servian
Literature built on the solid foundation of that of Ragusa. It had
been, with the exception of the Russians, adopted by all the other
Slavic nations. It would have indeed estranged him, seemingly, from
his nearer countrymen, who made the most passionate objections against
his innovations, even as they were; but as they, at any rate, had to
go to Austria for a literary education, this opposition would probably
not have lasted longer than it will last now. There was some fear,
that, with the Roman alphabet, the Roman chair would try to get
possession of their church; but those were not the times of Rome's
power; and the Turkish patronage seemed to secure them against such
arrogance. One thing is certain. Instead of strengthening for ever the
artificial wall of separation between the two classes of
Illyrico-Servians, it would have undermined that which already
existed; and Vuk, by his strong philosophical-grammatical talent,
would soon have gained influence enough on the Illyrico-Dalmatian
literature to mend the imperfections of their orthography, and to
induce the Croats and Servians to give up their capricious varieties.
The many detached parts of the products of Illyrico-Servian intellect
would have grown into one great whole; and would have become at least
accessible to foreigners; who, puzzled by all these varieties of
letters and forms of writing, lose the courage to penetrate into a
structure where they meet so much confusion at the very door. Indeed,
whether they turn to the eastern or to the western branch of the
Southern Slavi, they find equal individual and provincial anarchy; a
state of things which the latter at least have taken great pains to
amend.

Vuk published at Vienna, in 1824, the Gospel of St. Luke, as a
'Specimen of a translation of the New Testament into Servian.' What
part he had in the version printed at Leipsic by the British and
Foreign Bible Society, and now circulated among the Servians, we are
unable to say.[15] Modern educated Servian poets, upon whose writings
the very general interest which the national popular poetry has
excited, and no doubt also their own consciousness of its power, have
had a favourable influence, are the following: Lucian Mushitzky,
bishop of Karlstadt, a writer in many departments, and the author of
odes and other lyrical pieces, all of them highly esteemed by his
countrymen; Milovan Vidakovitch, Mich. Vitkovitch, J. Popovitch, G.
Kovatzevitch, etc.

More generally known is Simeo Milutinovitch, the author of several
small volumes of poetry, and of a larger epic poem entitled
_Serbianka_, which describes the Servian war of 1812. In 1837 he
published an historical work on Servia during the years 1813-15. Both
these latter narratives are valuable, as he himself had been an
eye-witness of many of the events described; had acted as secretary to
Czerny George, who could neither write nor read; and was afterwards
also employed by Prince Milosh.[16]

Two interesting collections of the popular poetry extant among the
inhabitants of Montenegro and Herzegovina were published in the course
of a few years by Tshubar Tshoikovitch; one of them edited by J.
Milowuk, himself a modern Servian writer of praiseworthy activity; the
other by the collector himself.[17]

Last, although not least, the present Vladika or bishop of Montenegro,
must be named among the modern Servian poets. The constitution of this
little mountain state, half warlike, half patriarchal, is an anomaly
in the system of European state governments in general. They form a
community of about 20,000 families, pressed into the valleys and
scattered along the slopes of the dark mountain ranges between
Cattaro, Herzegovina, Bosnia, and Albania; covering a surface of 80 or
90 geographical square leagues. Hitherto they have been permitted to
enjoy a perfect independence in respect to both their great
neighbours, Austria and Turkey. They look up only to the emperor of
Russia as a kind of liege lord; but more in his quality of Head of the
Slavic-Greek Church, than in that of a powerful sovereign. They stand
under the rule of a Vladika or bishop; who, besides being their
spiritual guide, is their chief judge and their leader in war; as
also, since 1832, exclusively their executive magistrate. Up to that
time they were accustomed to elect a _governor_; but he assumed too
much power; and the post had become hereditary in the family of
Radonich. They therefore dismissed him; and his functions were
likewise intrusted to the bishop.

Although the office of the Vladika had been formerly purely elective;
yet towards the close of the seventeenth century, through the
influence of Vladika Daniel Petrovitch of Niegosh, it became
hereditary in his own family; a member of which since that time has
always been appointed by the Russian emperor. As the Greek bishops
belong to the monastic clergy, who of course are not permitted to
marry,--while the secular clergy are _required_ to do so,--the
succession goes in a collateral line. The present Vladika, Peter
Petrovitch Niegosh, a man of uncommon size, handsome features,
considerable talent, and a highly respected character, was partly
educated in Russia. When his predecessor died,--a powerful man who had
ruled for fifty-three years, during which time he had led his flock to
many a bloody battle, and who was canonized as a saint by the present
bishop,--this latter was appointed by the emperor Nicholas. But as he
was then only fifteen years old, Montenegro was governed by a sort of
guardian; and the Vladika did not enter upon his office until he had
completed his eighteenth year. The wisdom, the energy, the consistency
in his improvements, which, he has displayed since that time,
constitute him, in connection with his youth, one of the most
remarkable personages of our time. His chief aim seems to be to make
Montenegro a member of the great civilized family of Europe, without
depriving her of her freedom and independence; and the firmness with
which he proceeds further and further in a course, where he meets with
difficulties at every step, deserves praise and admiration.

The first circumstance which directed the attention of literary Europe
to this remote corner, was a visit of the present king of Saxony, who
in 1838 made a botanical excursion into those "black mountains." [16]
Since then, the celebrated Egyptian scholar, Wilkinson, has visited
it; and this country is no longer closed against travelling artists.
The Vladika has naturally the manners of a gentleman; he is said to
speak French, and to understand German, Italian, and of course
Russian. That he is considered as one of the best riflemen and
horsemen in his country, we cannot esteem as of much importance in a
bishop; but he studies also the classics and translates the Iliad for
his own pleasure. His Servian poems seem mostly to have been written
on particular occasions. He addressed an ode to the king of Saxony
after his return to Dresden, which unfortunately not a person of the
whole court could understand; and the author of this volume, who
happened then to be at the "German Athens," was applied to for a
translation.[17] In their own productions, all these educated writers
imitate the modern literature of other nations further advanced in
civilization, especially the Germans. Milutinovitch has even a tinge
of their philosophy. There is no want of talent; but there is no
nationality in them. Nothing of that wonderful amalgamation of the
East and the West; of mountaineer wildness and Christian principles;
of barbarism and civilization; nothing of that interesting blending of
Asia and Europe, which we feel entitled to expect from the poetry of
_Servians_, who stand on the border between Muhammedanism and
Christendom. Nothing which these educated writers have hitherto
produced, can be compared with the effusions of their old blind men,
and of their peasant lads and girls, that is, their popular poetry.

Vuk's grammar, printed at Vienna 1818, before his dictionary, has
since been rendered accessible to other European nations by Grimm's
translation. Another Servian grammar has been published in German, by
Schaffarik. Vuk's judicious alphabetical arrangement and orthography,
we are sorry to say, have not been generally adopted; and the Russian
alphabet is still partly in use, with a number of letters superfluous
for the Servian language, which has not the shades of sound they are
meant to denote.

The political movements in Servia, during the last twelve years, have
of course been exceedingly injurious to the development of its infant
literature. While it seemed, under the energetic administration of
prince Milosh, in a fair way of progress, the confused cries of war
and insurrection since his abdication have drowned the modest voice of
the young muse. Of late, indeed, intelligence from that country has
been so rare, that we are unable to give a picture of the present
state of things.

2. _Literature of the Dalmatians or Illyrico-Servians of the Romish
Church_.

a) GLAGOLITIC LITERATURE.

It is not without some hesitation that we approach a region, into
which we cannot penetrate without stepping through a border of perfect
darkness. We allude to the introduction of the Glagolitic alphabet;
the great antiquity of which, supported by numerous traditions and
legends, as well as by its venerable and almost hieroglyphic look,
Kopitar's recent investigations and discoveries have again made
probable; without, however, throwing any more light upon its origin.

As Christianity was first introduced into Dalmatia by Romish priests,
the Latin language was of course adopted for religious purposes. But
so soon as the people became acquainted with the liturgy of Methodius
in a language intelligible to them, this innovation met with such a
general and heartfelt welcome, that all the severe decrees of synods,
nay, of the holy chair of Rome itself, were unable to stop its
progress.

Even more than a hundred and fifty years afterwards, when Methodius
was solemnly declared by pope Nicolas II. a heretic, and the Romish
mass again introduced, the attachment to their own language was too
deeply rooted to be taken away at once. Hence the Old Slavic idiom,
with the pope's reluctant permission, continued to be the language of
the Church service. It appears, however, that the alphabet which their
priests employed for writing their ecclesiastic documents, was not the
same with that used by other Slavi of the oriental church: but was of
a different character, and evidently _not_ derived from the Greek,
with the exception of a few letters. It was called the _Glagolitic._

_Glagol_ signifies in Old Slavic _the word_ or rather _the verb_; but
the reason of the application of this term to the Illyrico-Servians of
the catholic communion (_Glagolitæ)_, and to the language of their
sacred writings (_Glagolic_ or _Glagolitic_), has not yet been
ascertained; all that has as yet been asserted by Slavic philologians
being mere hypothesis. The oldest monument known up to 1830. in which
these letters were extant, was a Psalter of A.D. 1220. This Psalter
was by tradition ascribed to St. Jerome himself, who was in general
called the inventor of the Slavic, that is the _Glagolitic_ alphabet.
According to a popular legend of the Dalmatians, this father, who was
a native of Illyria, also translated the whole Bible into the Slavic;
but it has been since clearly proved, that while (as is well known) he
corrected the old Latin version of the Bible, he yet never wrote a
single line of Slavic.

The mystery, in which the origin of the Glagolitic was and still is
buried, gave birth to the singular hypothesis already above
mentioned.[18] The discovery however of several very ancient
Glagolitic manuscripts, and especially of one which could be proved to
be older than the Council of Spalatro[19] destroyed it at once; but
unfortunately, without clearing up the mystery either of its invention
or of its introduction.

Another Glagolitic manuscript of some interest may be mentioned here.
It was generally known, that the kings of France were accustomed, at
their coronation at Kheiras, to take the oath on a large book, called
_Texte du Sacre_, bound in gold or gilding, and covered with unwrought
precious stones, which contained the Gospels written in some unknown
hieroglyphic language. When in 1717 Tzar Peter I. visited Rheims, this
book was shown to him among other curiosities, and he exclaimed at
once: "This is my own Slavonic!" This view was soon spread among
Slavic scholars. But the precious parchment was written in two
columns, and in two languages. What idiom could the other be? The
French, it is said, took it for Greek: more probably for Coptic. In
1789, a learned English traveller, Thomas Ford Hill, was shown some
Glagolitic manuscripts in the imperial library at Vienna; whereupon he
declared without hesitation, that this was the mysterious writing of
the Rheims manuscript. Before the Vienna scholars, Dobner and Alter,
then at the head of Slavic matters, had time to investigate the matter
further, the revolution broke out, and the precious document
disappeared. No trace was left of it; and for half a century the
patriotic Slavic scholars supposed they had cause to lament the loss
of a document of the very highest antiquity. It was conjectured that
the book had originally been brought to France by some Slavic
princess; for instance, by a princess of Kief, who is said to have
been sent for by Henry I., son of Hugh Capet and king of France in the
beginning of the eleventh century. Application was made on the subject
to Sylvestre de Sacy; whose report gave some hope, that the precious
relic might still be preserved. Search was made by Kopitar in Italy
and at Paris, but all in vain. At last it was again found at Rheims by
the Russian scholar Stroyef;[20] who, however, seems not to have been
acquainted with the Glagolitic writing, and therefore laid little
stress on it. The volume was stripped of its costly ornaments, and had
therefore been the more easily recovered during the reign of Napoleon;
who endeavoured, as much as was in his power, to restore the spoils of
the revolution, while he himself filled Paris with the spoils of all
other nations.

The librarian at Rheims, in order best to meet the numerous inquiries
of Slavic scholars, caused a _fac simile_ of it to be taken; audit was
finally committed to the learned Kopitar's care. It was now
discovered, that this long deplored document contained two
unconnected portions of the Gospels; one in Cyrillic letters, the
other, considerably longer, in Glagolitic; and both executed with
remarkable calligraphic skill. The Glagolitic portion was marked with
the date 1395. It was written at Prague, and presented by the emperor
Charles IV. to the Abbot of Emaus; with the injunction, that these
_Evangelia_ should be chanted at mass; and the remark was added, that
the accompanying Cyrillic portion was written by St. Procopius with
his own hand. Procopius was one of the patron saints of Bohemia, who
died in 1053. How this valuable manuscript was finally removed to
France, is still unexplained. At Rheims nothing further was known,
than that it had been presented by the Cardinal of Lorraine in A.D.
1554. A rumour ascribed to the Cyrillic portion a Greek origin; the
Glagolitic part was generally considered as a relic from St. Jerome's
own library. This supposed immediate connection with two saints, may
well account for the reverence with which the book was treated in
France.[21] A splendid edition of this work, under the patronage of
the emperor of Russia, was prepared by Kopitar, and appeared in 1843
at Paris.[22]

Although the use of the Slavic language was in a certain measure
authorized by the pope, yet the clergy of Dalmatia preferred
unanimously the Latin for their theological and ecclesiastical
writings. The Glagolitic literature was therefore almost exclusively
limited to copies of the productions of their Cyrillic brethren. The
Glagolitic letters had, however, the precedence of the Cyrillic
alphabet, in respect to printing. The first printed Glagolitic missal,
is of the year 1483; whilst the earliest work printed in the
Cyrillic letters is not older than A.D. 1491. In the sixteenth century
books were printed at Zengh (Segna), at Fiume, at Venice, and at
Tubingen, with Glagolitie letters. In the year 1621, the emperor
Ferdinand II. presented the Propaganda with a font of Glagolitic
types, which he obtained from Venice. Several improved breviaries and
missals have since been printed at Rome. In our day, this city
possesses the only Glagolitic printing office in existence. On the
Dalmatian islands, books are still copied in manuscript, just as
before the invention of printing.

Among the Dalmatian clergy, there were a few who united a real
interest for the preservation of their language and for science in
general. Raph. Levakovitch improved the breviary in 1648, in respect
to language; the archbishop Vincenz Zmajevitch, ob. 1771, a great
patron of the literature of his country, founded a hundred years later
a theological seminary in Zara. Matthias Caraman, on occasion of a new
edition of the missal by the Propaganda in 1741, undertook a
fundamental revision and correction of it. The Propaganda also founded
a Slavic professorship in the _Collegia Urbano_; and for the benefit
of this Society a new translation of the whole Bible was resolved
upon, which however has never been published. A notice of the
exertions of the priest Rosa belongs rather to the history of
Dalmatian secular literature.

b) SECULAR LITERATURE.

It is not certain at what time, nor by whom, the Latin letters were
first adopted for the Servian language. The earliest teachers of the
occidental portion of that people having been Romish priests, they of
course used their own letters for writing such Slavic words or names
as occasion required. The Latin alphabet probably came into use
without any particular pains, long before the introduction of the
Glagolitic letters. These, in their awkward hieroglyphic form, were
little adapted to supersede the Latin forms. The example of the Poles
and Bohemians could only encourage the first Dalmatian writers to
continue in the same course; although each of these nations follows a
different system of pronouncing the same letters. The orthography of
the Dalmatians remained, however, for a long time entirely unsettled:
and is so still in some measure. A greater difficulty arose from the
absurd practice of the Slavonians and Croatians, who, although
speaking and writing the same language, yet write and print it each
according to a different system of combination; thus limiting the
perusal of their own scanty productions almost exclusively to the few
readers of their small provinces respectively, whilst the remainder of
their countrymen are hardly able to understand them. This division,
however, compels us likewise to separate in our sketch the literature
of the Dalmatians proper, and that of the catholic Slavonians.

_Literature of Dalmatia Proper_.

The neighbourhood of the Italians exercised in very early times a
happy influence on the literature of the Dalmatians. The small
republic of Ragusa, during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, was
at the zenith of its splendour and welfare. Celebrated Italians were
teachers in her schools; and the persecuted Greeks, Lascaris,
Demetrius Chalcondylas, Emanuel Marulus, and several others,
celebrated over all Europe for their learning, found an asylum within
her walls. Thus the treasures of the classics and of the Italian
middle ages became familiar to the noble youths of Ragusa, until, in
the beginning of the sixteenth century, poetry began to appear in a
national dress. The Italian influence remained strikingly visible.
Blasius Darxich, Sigismund Menze, Mauro Vetranich, and Stephen Gozze
(ob. 1576), are mentioned as the first Dalmatian poets. The latter
wrote a comic epic, the _Dervishiade_, which met with great success. A
poem of the same kind is _Jegyupka_, the Gipsy, by Andreas
Giubronavich, printed at Venice 1559. Dominic Zlatarich (ob. 1608)
translated Tasso and the Electra of Sophocles, and was himself a lyric
poet.

The annals of this period, towards the end of the sixteenth century,
report likewise the name of a lady, Svietana Zuzerich, as an Illyrian
poetess; called also Floria Zuzzeri, as an Italian poetess; for she
wrote with success in both languages. Several other ladies followed
the example, as Lucrezia Bogashinovich, Katharina Pozzo di Sorgo, etc.

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Ragusa enjoyed peace,
and a degree of wealth and prosperity most favourable to high
attainments in science and literature. The first Slavic theatre was
founded here, and the dramatic art seems to have been considered so
honourable, that even noblemen acted publicly; as is related of Junius
Palmota, who died in 1657. The noble names of Palmota or Palmotich,
Gondola or Gondolich, for they appear alternately both in the Slavic
and Italian form, are very frequent in Ragusian literature. Junius
Palmota wrote tragedies; selecting his subjects principally from
Slavic history. But his most esteemed production is a Slavic version
of a great Latin epic on Christ, by M.H. Vita, which may be considered
as a kind of precursor to Klopstock's Messiah. John Gondola, a
dramatic writer before him, translated Tasso's Jerusalem Delivered;
and left many lyrical poems.