others. Such an appendix would have grown into a volume itself. It had to be greatly curtailed. But all these materials have gone to making the book, which is rather a plain narration than an attempt to rectify or criticise Tolstoï’s opinions and theories. One cannot read Tolstoï or about Tolstoï and refrain from forming an opinion. His biographer, even if he completely dissent from his conclusions and regret the course taken by his life, which like a river winds through superb and picturesque mountains, skirts fertile prairies and is shaded by glorious forests, and may also wander into arid deserts, must recognize that it is the same river, however, and must follow it reverently and sympathetically. If reverence and sympathy are lacking, it cannot be a fair biography.
One word must be added as to the spelling of Tolstoï’s name. It is absolutely a triviality of transliteration whether it be spelled with a final ï or y. Unquestionably the author himself in signing his letters in French or English spelled it Leo Tolstoy. Is it necessary to con- form to his spelling of it when it goes against the ratified recommendation of the Society of Librarians? The dieresis corresponds fairly well to the i s kratkoï of the Russian letter. It is the way it was first spelled both in French and in English. It is such a small matter that it seems hardly worth while to mention it. But the question has been raised, and it is well to let the world know that the spelling with ï is perfectly correct and has the weight of scientific authority behind it. In the book all Russian words and proper names, unless otherwise indicated, are pronounced with the accent on the penult. Dates are invariably given in new style, the old style being twelve days in the nineteenth century and thirteen days in this century behind the calendar of civilization.
Boston, October 1, 1911.
