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 Do