is not a universal artist such as Shakespeare, or even as Tolstoy, although he has one eminently Shakespearian gift, and that is the faculty for discerning the “soul of goodness in things evil.” Yet, as a writer, he reached and expressed the ultimate extreme of the soul’s rapture, anguish and despair, and spoke the most precious words of pity which have been heard in the world since the Gospels were written. In this man were mingled the love of St. John, and the passion and the fury of a fiend; but the goodness in him was triumphant over the evil. He was a martyr; but bound though he was on a fiery wheel, he maintained that life was good, and he never ceased to cry “Hosanna to the Lord: for He is just!” For this reason Dostoievsky is something more than a Russian writer: he is a brother to all mankind, especially to those who are desolate, afflicted and oppressed. He had “great allies”: “His friends were exaltations, agonies, And love, and man’s unconquerable mind.” FOOTNOTES: [17] These italics are mine. [18] No finer estimate of Dostoievsky’s genius exists than M. de Vogüé’s introduction to _La Maison des Morts_. [19] This is, of course, not universal. See Mr. Gosse’s _Questions at Issue_. [20] It is characteristic that Dostoievsky puts the idea of the “Superman” into the mouth of a monomaniac. [21] The French translation of this book is an abridgment. It is quite incomplete. [22] This sentence has been misunderstood by some of my readers and critics. What I mean is that the Christian charity and love preached in the Gospel of St. John are reflected more sharply and fully in Dostoievsky’s books than in those of any other writer I know of. [23] By a doctrinaire I mean not a man who has strong principles and convictions; but a man who deliberately shuts his eyes to those facts which contradict his theory, and will pursue it to the end even when by so doing the practice resulting is the contrary of his aim. CHAPTER VII THE PLAYS OF ANTON TCHEKOV Anton Tchekov is chiefly known in Russia as a writer of short stories.[24] He is a kind of Russian Guy de Maupassant, without the bitter strength of the French writer, and without the quality which the French call “cynisme,” which does not mean cynicism, but ribaldry.