But

cret of this perennial freshness lies in her origin. She is the outcome of her creator's perceptive experience, subtly idealized by humor, yet so that the essential characteristics of the Gampish nature, in all their unloveliness, have full play. There is a ripe, fullbodied flavor about Sairey, a refulgence as of "an aged and a great wine," that proclaims her lineage. She is with Falstaff. There is the same rich unctuousness of character, the same superb self-sufficiency, the same opulence of statement and fantastic play of imagination, the same insuperable proclivity to "sack." the egotism which is an inseparable feature of either character is in Mrs. Gamp subdued. For Dickens, by a happy stroke of genius, created a medium for Sairey's self-revelation which refracts her self-assertion; and which, at the same time, is in itself a humorous conception of the first order-the famous, the enigmatical, the ever-delightful Mrs. Harris. That the last touch may not be wanting to so opulent a personality, Mrs. Gamp is endowed with a vocabulary at once rich, idiomatic, inimitable, that issues in a style of corresponding quality with a natural rhythm that is in itself a triumph of art.

The sources of Dickens' humor are neither deep nor subtle. It is never a disguise for the melancholy bred in a strenuous nature by the disparity between the ideal and the actual in men and in life; nor a vent for the impatience generated in an imaginative temperament by the spectacle of human folly; nor a medium to refract the disillusionment of an ardent soul foiled in the attempt to solve "the riddle of the painful earth." It is a humor which seeks and finds its ratification in laughter,-a mirth-provoking humor,emanating from the animal spirits of a man with a keen sense of the ludicrous, and an abnormal faculty for

perceiving the more obvious incongruities of life. That this is its paramount source is proved by the gulf that yawns between Dickens' early work and his later. As his animal spirits died down, the old plenary power and inspiration, so visible in his early novels up to David Copperfield, began to fail him; the humor that once floated everything it touched began to slacken and grow intermittent, until it finally ebbed away in the sandy wastes of Our Mutual Friend. Even his style, once a thing of power, if not of beauty, grew labored and tortuous, and beset with mannerisms that are a weariness of the flesh.

If Dickens in certain particulars fails to support the return made upon him, if some disenchantment follows on a critical re-perusal of his work, his spell in the main is still potent, and the essential greatness of his achievement is never in question. No writer of the Victorian era, Carlyle excepted, generates in the mind of his reader so vivid a sense of genius; of that sheer dæmonic power which must wreak itself, whether in literature or elsewhere; and which compels recognition if it does not command assent. He accomplished many things. He achieved some which no one else had adventured; and this with a supreme felicity that proscribed, though it did not deter, imitation. By influence, not less than by performance, he ranks as one of the great forces of English literature. Time may diminish the potency of his appeal; ignore it, never. And the paramount source of that appeal, as already indicated, is his humor. It is here that we come into touch with the authentic and unmistakable Dickens-the inimitable part of him. This is his true patent of immortality. long as pity and chivalry, mirth and laughter, have dominion on the earth, so long will the name of Charles Dickens endure and his power extend. And

So

as one takes leave of him, it is with the conviction that wheresoever his influence may penetrate, there will be one

The Westminster Review.

beneficent and humanizing agent the more at work among men.

William A. Sibbald.

We have dealt, so far, with our questions as to the actual state of things in Russia, as to revolutionary activity, and as to the counter-measures taken by the present Government. Let us now see what light can be thrown on the second of our original questionsnamely, as to the composition and probable fate of the Dooma.

It is obvious that if any improvement can be noted it is only in comparison with the greater horrors of the past two years. Discontent is still all but universal; but is now directed from the Right as well as the Left against the devoted Ministry, which, while Liberal by profession, is Conservative in aim and despotic in action. The parties that returned a large majority to the last Dooma are being hampered and persecuted; the electorate diminished by Senatorial "Explanations" backed by arbitrary and repressive measures; the Press bullied much in the old fashion; and the peasant treated, to use an Oriental expression, to "first the stick and then the sugar-stick." The Left claims, indeed, that persecution will have its usual result in rallying and uniting its forces; the Right trumpets a reaction that is to utterly discomfit the "enemies of their country." Leaders and publicists on both sides are full of fight and fury; but the country, owing to a variety of causes, is undoubtedly more apathetic than last year; and in view of this, of the partial reaction, and of the losses occasioned to the Radical electorate by various Government measures, the Left feels more

and more the necessity of combined action as defined by M. Plekhánoff:

Political wisdom demands from us. now, that we should willingly come to an agreement with the non-proletariat parties in all cases when such a course is requisite to secure victory over the reaction. Whoever, in the name of misunderstood "irreconcilability," re fuses to do so in effect supports the Government, and therefore acts as the enemy of freedom.

In other words, where any opposition party is not in a position to secure the return of its own candidate, it should work for that opponent of the Government who has the best chance of suecess.

To the foreign observer the saddest feature, perhaps, in the whole situation is the striking disregard of common humanity shown by all alike the Revolutionists with their bombs and Brownings, the Government with its shootings and hangings, the "true Russians" with their ferocious endeavors to bring about fresh pogroms. Truly "the dark places of the earth are full of cruelty." Only the weak and shadowy Centre still preaches humanity, there alone do we find any trace of Christian feeling; but the day has not yet come for moderation, and the new Dooma will probably show strengthnot necessarily numerical strengthonly at both extremes.

The tendency, indeed, is to concentration on the Left and on the Right; to division in the Centre, where alone we have a new party-that of "Peaceful Regeneration," due to secession

from the Octobrists of certain prominent members, led by Count Heyden, who were alarmed and dissatisfied at signs of reaction in the counsels of that party. Well-wishers to Russia would gladly hail the success at the elections of Count Heyden's followers, for that would mean the triumph of moderate men and peaceful methods; but such a consummation, however de voutly to be wished, is not, alas! to be expected.

The advocates of a bloc, a temporary alliance of all the parties of the Left for purposes of the present elections, under the banner of "All the Liberties and a Responsible Ministry”—responsible, that is, to the Dooma-seem confident of success. The fear of such a combination, indeed, is supposed to be at the bottom of the Ministry's desperate endeavors to crush the Constitutional Democrats and conciliate its opponents of the Right. The Labor representatives, who, strictly speaking, formed not an organized party but a group, entered the last Dooma some ninety strong. How will it be now? They were said to have a platform but no programme. Their sympathies were with the Socialists, but they had put Socialism aside for the more practical pursuit of purely political aims. The Senatorial "Explanations" may affect them to some extent, to the benefit of the Government, but not largely; in any case they cannot be expected to support the present Ministry, but the question is, will they join such a bloc or keep to themselves?

The veteran Socialist, M. Plekhanoff, issued on the last day of October an eloquent appeal for unity amongst working men, who last year for the most part refused to go to the urns. That in Poland, at least, such an appeal is sadly needed is proved by the fact that at Lodz during the last weeks of October no fewer than forty-eight workmen were killed and wounded in

party quarrels. A little later, by way of smoothing over the difficulties between the Constitutional Democrats and Socialists, M. Arsénieff, another veteran, urged that it was a question rather of policy than of aim, calling the latter Revolutionists, the former Evolutionists, and maintaining that the difference between their ideals did not necessitate opposition in action.

The Kadets (Constitutional Demo crats or party of National Freedom) put forward as the first plank in their electoral platform local self-government, "a new and interesting feature," said the "Tovarishtch," as this question has hitherto attracted little attention, and the Right makes use of the Zemstvo organization cleverly enough, while the Left has done little to secure the introduction there of the democratic elements-peasants elected by the Volosts. "It is true that some individual members of the Dooma did put forward local self-government, but only with a view to agrarian reform, which they considered could be realized in no other way." Here again M. Stoleepin has endeavored to steal a march on his opponents, declaring in an interview published in the "Times" on October 31, that the object of the Government was "to build up from the foundation; in other words, to create and foster the principle of local government."

At the last election the Extreme Left abstained, but since then there has been a great change, and from the very beginning of the electoral campaign urgent calls to record every possible vote have been made from all sides. Last year the main fight was between the Octobrists and the Kadets; now we have "a complicated grouping, presenting to the electors incomparably more serious and more responsible demands."

The side issues are, indeed, complicated, but the main issue, after all, is

just what it was-namely, is the nation at large ready to pass a vote of confidence in the bureaucratic régime or not? And we can hardly be in doubt as to the answer. But the verdict may be masked, the jury intimidated; the Ministry may find itself in a position to keep the extremists in check by the simple expedient of pitting one against the other. One thing, however, is certain-if they do not, if the Left in overwhelming strength attempts to repeat the tactics of last year, or if the two extreme parties between them make things impossible, the second Dooma will incur the fate of the first; for the Government at present is sure of the army, and so long as that is the case, so long as it can rely on a supremacy of physical force, it will not turn its cheek to the smiter.

It is a strange thing, after all, this loyalty of the army-humiliating, consolatory; something to weep at, to exult in, according to the point of view from which it is considered. The peasant, the workman, is taken unwillingly, torn from home and occupation, drilled and cuffed about in a barrack yard, and in six months he can in most cases be relied on to shoot or cut down his brothers in the street at the word of command. If ever there was a chance of gaining over the troops to the revolutionary cause it was last year, after the disasters of the war, and when the spirit of revolt had spread like wildfire through the country. The revolutionary parties thoroughly understood this.

Their chance

came with the return of the beaten soldiery from Manchuria; they did their best and scored some successes here and there. But, on the whole, they failed. On one or two occasions troops refused to fire on the mob; there were several instances of insubordination, notably in the Premier Guard Regiment, the Emperor's Own,

the famous Preobrazhensky, dating from Peter's boyhood. But the army as a whole remained true to its colors and to its oath, and, being Russian, did the work of suppression, the work it was called upon to do, zealously, ruthlessly, to the bitter disappointment of the Revolutionists. The Russian is, in truth, a barbarian, not because he is incapable of better things, but simply because he is only semi-civilized, and, like all barbarians, he likes killing; the shedding of blood gives him pleasure. We see it in the annals of Russian warfare, we see it in the records of past and present internal troubles. The want of humanity that characterizes all parties to the struggle now raging has already been noted; and, were it not tragic, one might laugh at the solicitude of both sides for human life when it is their own adherents that suffer. The conscience of the nation. we were told years ago, and the Dooma repeated it, demanded the abo lition of the death penalty. But the conscience of the nation slept when Skobeleff sacked Geok Tepe in 1881, and again when 6,000 unarmed Chinese were slaughtered at Blagovieshtchensk in 1900. The daily executions by drumhead court-martial excite vast indignation on the Left, which has not a word to say against the slaughter of officials, policemen, soldiers, and innocent passers-by in the sacred name of freedom. The Right exults openly in the punitive expeditions and the pogroms, with their truly sickening details. Nor is this seeming contradiction due to hypocrisy. The Russians have not yet reached the stage of civilization when hypocrisy acquires sufficient value to flourish. It is simply a case of that barbarism through which all Western nations have likewise passed-and not so very long ago, after all. Nor is the cruelty of the Russians of the fiendish type characteristic of Southern Europe; it is akin rather to

The

the dull brutality of the Northerner, due to ignorance and bluntness of perception, which passes away gradually with the growth of civilization. good nature of the moozheek in ordinary life has become almost proverbial; it has been dwelt on lovingly by so many writers that the opposite manifestations of recent times have puzzled foreigners not a little. As a matter of fact, as all who know the Russian peasant intimately are aware, his kindness of heart and bestial ferocity are equally genuine and equally strong. And the peasant and the soldier are

one.

We have already noted the ready way in which the recruits have come in this season-a fact that no one would have ventured to predict a few months ago. The Left is undoubtedly chagrined, but puts a good face on, and pretends that word was sent round through its agents not to interfere with but to favor the conscription as much as possible, with a view to increasing the revolutionary leaven in the ranks of the army. It may be so, but we take leave to doubt it. The fact is that the peasants, as a whole, have not yet got beyond the stage of economic discontent, which manifests itself in various ways, but not in a refusal to serve with the colors, especially at a time when the chance of foreign war is extremely remote. The whole army being renewed in the course of three years, the revolutionists at the commencement of the troubles assigned that period for the success of their propaganda. Within three times twelve months every man in the ranks would have joined after the war, after the dawn of liberty in Russia. Then we should see! But so far it does not appear likely that this prediction will be verified. In the long run, if misgovernment continues, if the peasants, instead of settling down to the cultivaion of the land, old and new, under the

improved conditions of tenure, continue dissatisfied and take to politics, the army, too, will be affected throughout. Meantime, it will continue to shoot, and slash, and thrust when ordered; and, that being so, the Government of the Tsar will have no hesitation in turning out a second Dooma if it should prove equally as recalcitrant as the first.

Of the Russian navy it would be kinder, doubtless, to say nothing. Yet in our review of the situation it cannot be left wholly out of sight. There are Russians, and in the highest places, who, echoing a question often heard abroad, ask: "What good is a navy to us?" Why spend more millions in rebuilding a fleet that can have no meaning unless strong enough, in every sense, to engage a first-class naval Power with some chance of success, when the conditions are such as to preclude the attainment of such strength within a reasonable period? The possible enemies of Russia at sea are Japan, England, and Germany. To fight any one of them would require not merely a fleet, but a navy, a navy fitted in all respects to solve the problem that would arise from a conflict with one or other of those Powers-a living organism, in short, with heart and head to inspire and direct, as well as a hand to fight. The ships can be built or bought-that is merely a question of money, and the money will, if necessary, be forthcoming. But can Russia hope to man them as they should be manned? Can she hope to inform the navy, as a whole, with the spirit that would make victory possible, or at least a second Tsushima impossible?

On the eve of the late war the fiftieth anniversary of what Western Europe calls "the massacre of Sinope" was celebrated in Russian naval circles as if it had been another Nile or Trafalgar. The Russian naval officer, with little behind him but victories