b o o k a p y emerged from this ftate o f almoil total darknefs; and
continued improving in civilization and cultures under the
patronage o f the fucceeding fovereigns, particularly Ivan II.
Boris Godunof, the two firft tzars o f the line o f Rotmnof,
and the princefs Sophia, who held the reins o f government
in the minority of Peter I. But it was not till the æla of
that gréât monarch, that letters, which a few iilftances excepted
had hitherto been confined to the regular clergy,
began to be cultivated by the laity 1 a fare figli that the nation
was advancing to a more général ilate o f improvement.
A review o f the lives and works o f a few o f the moil
eminent writers, who have contributed to polifh and refine
the language, and to diffufe a tafte for fcience among theif
countrymen, will aflift in tracing the progrefs of literature,
and afcertaining its prefent ftate *.
In this inquiry I ihall confine myfelf principally to two
heads : I. Hiftory ; and II. Poetry.
I. H i s t o r y .
This empire can boaft the earlieft hiftorian o f the
North ; for, at a period when Poland, Sweden, and Denmark
were unlettered; when even the annalifts o f Iceland were yet
mute, a monk o f the convent of Petcherfki at Kiof was compiling
the hiftory o f Ruffia.
This annalift, whofe fecular name is not known, was born
in 1056 at Bielozero ; and in the nineteenth year o f his age
he aflumed the monaftick habit in the above-mentioned con-
* Perhaps fome lit t le ap olo g y w ou ld h a ve th e plan o f this w o r k ; i f th e author
been th o u gh t neceflary fo r th e au th or’ s p re - had' n o t ca re fu lly p eru fed feveral efteemed
fum in g t ó touch upon th e lite ra tu re o f a tranflations o f th è origina l compofitions ;
na tion , w ith whofe lan gu ag e he profefles and had not always given his criticifms on
him fe lf unacqu ainted ; i f the fubjeét had not the^authority o f th o fe perfons w ho a re either
been to ta lly unknown to th e E n g liih reader, natives o r perfec t maile rs o f th e Ruffian
and feemed' in a grea t d egree conneétèd w ith ton gu e.
vent,
vent, and took the name o f Neflor *. At Kiof he made a cwap.
confiderable proficiency in the Greek language : but f c i c j j f v ,
to have formed his ftyle and manner rather from the Byzantine
hiftorians, Cedrenus, Zonaras, and Syncellus, than from
the antient clafficks. The rime o f Neftor’s death is not ascertained
; but he is fuppofed to have lived to-an advanced
age, and to have died about the year 1115.
His great work is his Chronicle, to which he" has prefixed
an introdudhon, which, after a ihort iketch o f the early ftate
of the world taken from the Byzantine writers, contains a '
geographical defcription o f Ruffia and, the adjacent countries-
an account o f the Sclavonian nations, their manners, their
emigrations from the banks o f the Danube, their difperfion >
and fettlement in the feveral countries, wherein their defendants
are now eftabliihed. He then enters upon a chronological
feries o f the Ruffian .annals, from the year 8c8 to
about 1 1 1 3 . His ftyle is fimple and unadorned, fuch as
fmts a mere recorder o f fa ils ; but his chronological ex a il-'
nefs, though it renders his narrative dry and tedious, contri-
« i afc^rtam the ^ and authenticity o f the events.
Which he relates t.
„ u ^ r ,', “ o u n to F N e f io r> i H
j a l l j ’ M u lle r , S. R . G . V . p . 6 ; an d S ch lo .
etzer,s probe Ruffifche A n n a le n ; w h ich
j and biterefting w o rk I have ch iefly
- I * as tBe g rea t fou rce o f information
elative to th e ,e a r ly ann aiifts-of Ruffia.
himfelf “ ,mPetenO u dg e thus exprefles
-« M « reg to th" P«*™ance :
“ .F or all in fÜ Wnd-
“ a s th e o th e r S c la v o n ia p p e o p l e , fu c h
“ -cannot n n ’ Bohemians> I lly r ian s , & c .
» w r i'te r -w h o - c a h in
“ fian Z ! « § N coStend wil* th e R u f-
“ « ! ; antiq u ity , min u ten efs, a c -
■Vb l . U 3n ttUth- H e w a» 'f o h igh ly
It
efteemed in R d f lk , and - th e firbfeqnent!
^ writers were fo convinced o f his fidelity
th a t , in fp e a k in g o f th e fame times, th e y
adopt h is -v e r y words, o r m ak e o n ly th e
fmalleft a lterations.
“ I w ill not. preju d ice th e readers in th e i f i
ju d g em en t con cern in g th e au th en tic ity ,
or this ann alift ; and I am convinced, t h a t ,
‘ w hoever, perufes his w o rk , w ill a t o n c e .
-• do-him the ju ft ic e w h ich he deferves. I
! allude to thofe readers o n ly w h o do not-
a ckn owledg e an y o th e r hiftories th a n ,
thofe w h ich are derived from th e mo ft
efteemed fo u r c e s ; and who kn ow h ow to
; diftinguifh w ith c r itic a l exatfne fs th e pu -
I rity