[Sidenote: =Dargomijsky, 1813-68=] Dargomijsky, who has been claimed as the founder of modern Russian opera, wrote two fairly well-known works, _The Water-Sprite_ and _The Stone Guest_, the story of the latter being closely allied to that of Mozart’s _Don Giovanni_. In his operas Dargomijsky seems to have been more or less unconsciously working on the lines of Wagner in the construction of his intermediary recitative sections, and his whole method is one of greater advancement than that of Glinka. His chief follower was Moussorgsky (1839-81), a composer much influenced also by Wagner. The latter was also an able literary critic; his most famous work was entitled _Judith_. [Sidenote: =Borodin 1834-87=] Borodin, a capable chemist as well as a skilled musician, has a name for the composition of clever examples of chamber music. To the operatic repertoire he contributed _Prince Igor_, a work following Italian methods to some extent, but still possessing much that stamps its Russian origin. It is one of the few members of its class which is bright and cheerful in tone, with an absence of that pessimism which is the prevalent feature of so much Russian music. [Sidenote: =César-Cui 1835-=] César-Cui has composed _Ratcliff_, _Angelo_, _The Flibustier_, and five other works, the last mentioned having been produced in Paris. Cui is still living (1909), and is well known for his able literary articles and contributions to the Russian journals and magazines. Rimsky-Korsakoff (born in 1844) has written several works, among them _Pskowitjanka_ and _The May Night_. Up to the present, although some of his orchestral music has found representation in England, we have not yet had any opportunity of passing criticism upon his operatic flights. [Sidenote: =Tchaïkovsky 1840-93=] The name of Tchaïkovsky is well enough known in the concert rooms of England, and, indeed, of the world. Of all Russian composers his is the name to conjure with, and although one cannot pass unrestrictedly favourable criticism upon all that he composed, we undoubtedly owe to him a very great deal that is surpassingly rich, beautiful, and likely to endure. His genius, however, did not shine at its brightest in the theatre, and although, like the Bohemian Dvŏrák, he was attracted again and again to the stage, his work has not met with such universal success as it has done in other spheres.