We can without hesitation affirm that Balzac, too, is, to a certain degree, a Christian author. But only by confronting the two ethical points of view, the French author’s and the Russian’s, can we realize the chasm between the former’s Catholicism and the latter’s purely evangelical doctrine, and how widely the Catholic spirit can differ from the purely Christian. Or, to offend none, let me express myself thus: Balzac’s _Comédie Humaine_ sprang from the contact between the Gospels and the Latin mind: Dostoevsky’s from the contact between the Gospels and Buddhism, the Asiatic mind. These are merely preliminary considerations which will help us at our next meeting to probe deeper into the souls of these strange creations. III What we have accomplished so far has been a mere clearing of the ground. Before attacking the problem of Dostoevsky’s philosophy, I should like to warn you against a grave misconception. During the last fifteen years of his life, Dostoevsky busied himself considerably with the editing of a review. The articles he wrote for this periodical have been collected in what is known as the _Journal of an Author_. In these articles Dostoevsky sets forth his ideas. It would seem the simplest and most natural thing in the world to make constant reference to this book; but I may as well admit at once that it is profoundly disappointing. In it we find an exposé of his social theories, which, however, never emerge from the nebulous state and are most awkwardly expressed. We find, too, political prophecies not one of which has come true. Dostoevsky tries to foretell the future state of Europe and goes far astray in practically every instance.