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.