and the philosophy of religion of Dostoevskii's predecessors and successors, and this is compiled in such a fashion as to present something approaching a history of the evolution of these ideas.
"The introductory section dealing with the history of Russia has been prefixed because in my account of the individual writers under consideration various historical references are requisite, and instead of complicating the exposition by notes and interpolations it seemed preferable to undertake a systematic survey of historical development, and to utilise this opportunity to direct the reader's attention to the problems subsequently to be discussed.
"The first half of the second portion will deal with Dostoevskii's philosophy of history and philosophy of religion (A Struggle for God—Dostoevskii and Nihilism); the second half will expound the relationship of Dostoevskii to Russian literature since Puškin, and his relationship to European literature (Titanism or Humanism? From Puškin to Gor'kii).
"The work will afford proof that an analysis of Dostoevskii is a sound method of studying Russia, though some might doubt this at first sight. By word of mouth certain experts have expressed such a doubt, but I hope to show that I have been right in choosing Dostoevskii as my main text—and this although, or for the very reason that, I differ profoundly from Dostoevskii's outlook.
"Whilst writing I have had in mind the interests of two distinct reading publics, that of Europe and that of Russia. This has involved a peculiar duplex position. For Europe, it was necessary to explain much that would be unknown to my readers. For Russia, I have often had to formulate the known in some fresh way, and to present the whole object of vision in an unfamiliar light.
"The result has been a certain lack of symmetry. The reader will have to forgive me for dealing with matters unknown or comparatively unknown in Europe at greater length than is consistent with the usual canons of literary composition.
"Had I written the book for Russia alone it would have been more concisely expressed. But even as it is, I have assumed a great deal as familiar. This applies above all to descriptive detail, statistics, and the like; but I devote an appendix to the bibliography of the study of Russia.
"I may add that in the year 1902, in a course of lectures
