In modern times considerable attention has been devoted to the examination of the Old Slavic language and its relation to its kindred dialects.  Antiquarian and paleographical researches have been happily combined with philological investigations; and the eminent names which are found among these diligent and philosophical inquirers, insure the best prospects to their cause.[28]

FOOTNOTES: 

[Footnote 1:  See below in the History of the Russian Language, and the so called Improvement of the Bible and church books.]

[Footnote 2:  In modern times this view has been defended principally by Russian philologists, the Metropolitan Eugene, Kalajdovitch, etc.]

[Footnote 3:  See his Kyrill und Method, Prague, 1823.  Schloezer considers likewise the Old Slavic as a Bulgarian dialect of the ninth century.  See his Northern History, p. 330.  In another place he calls it the mother of the other Slavic languages; see his Nestor, I. p. 46.]

[Footnote 4:  In his Grammar of the Slavic Language in Carniola, Carinthia, and Stiria.]

[Footnote 5:  Jahrbuecher der Literatur, Vienna, 1822, Vol.  XVII.  Grimm is of the same opinion; see the Preface to his translation of Vuk Stephanovitch’s Servian Grammar.]

[Footnote 6:  See above, p. 11.]

[Footnote 7:  This view Schaffarik takes in his work on Slavic Antiquities, and in his Slavic Ethnography.  Palacky, a distinguished Bohemian scholar, adopted the same opinion in his History of Bohemia, Prague 1836.  Both were combatted in a furious review by Kopitar, in Chmel’s Oestr.  Geschichtsforscher, III. 1838; printed separately under the title:  Der Pannonische Ursprung der Slavischen Liturgie. etc.]

[Footnote 8:  Dobrovsky’s Entwurf zu einer allgemeinen Slavischen Etymologie, Prague 1812.  See also the Slovanka of this celebrated scholar.]

[Footnote 9:  Schloezer’s Nestor, III. p. 224.]

[Footnote 10:  Rakoviecky, in his edition of the Pravda Russka, Warsaw 1820-22.  Katancsich, Specimen Philologiae et Geographiae, etc. 1795.  See also Fraehn’s publication, “Ueber die alteste Schrift der Russen,” St. Petersb. 1835; where a specimen is given of the form of writing which the Arabian author Ibn Abi Jakub el Nedim ascribes to the Russians.  This writer lived at the close of the tenth century.  He quotes as his authority an envoy sent from some Caucasian prince to the king of the Russians.]

[Footnote 11:  As in modern Greek; see also Bullmann’s Gram. sec. 3. 2.]

[Footnote 12:  See Rees’ Cyclopedia, art. Khazares; where however it is incorrectly said, that they were a Turkish tribe.]

[Footnote 13:  Posadnik is about the same as mayor.]

[Footnote 14:  In the Slavic version of the Chronicle of Dalmatia, the Epistles instead of the Palter are named.]