Page:Russian Realities and Problems - ed. James Duff (1917).djvu/215

 work, containing a critical interpretation of the Chronicle of Nestor. Meanwhile Shcherbatov began to study general Russian history in a "pragmatic" way, and Boltin formulated some scientific views of the natural factors which determined its course, particularly as to Russian manners and customs, and of the consistency which is to be desired in their development.

This differentiation between universal and Russian history grew more conspicuous in course of time. The critical spirit applied by some of the German historians to the study of Russian history penetrated into a coterie formed by Rumyantsev at the beginning of the 19th century: he was supported by Krug and other learned men. The works of the eldest member of this group—the metropolitan Eugène Bolshovitinov, were distinguished by acuteness and learning and prepared the way for later synthetic surveys of Russian history. The first of these, Karamzin's History of the Russian State, was, however, mainly a brilliant literary production; and subsequent Russian historians, while availing themselves of the wealth of information which it contained, particularly in the notes, elaborated a more scientific construction of our past.

Further development of Russian historical thought manifested itself after the publication in 1835 of the new regulations for Universities. Since that time, universal history has received much more independent treatment, thanks especially to Kutorga in Petrograd and Granovsky in Moscow.

The learned "humanist" Kutorga studied, under the influence of Niebuhr's criticism, mainly ancient history; he gave Considerable credit to Greek historical