1 There is a great deal of justification and rationalization in W. J. Leatherbarrow's introduction to The Cambridge Companion to Dostoevskii. He spends several pages arguing for the need for such a "companion," and for the relevance of Dostoevskii. There are references to comments about Dostoevskii's preeminence as a thinker, novelist, or incompetent, by the usual suspects such as Einstein, Steiner, and Nabokov, respectively. He goes on to question and discuss Dostoevskii's relevance to contemporary readers and culture, and skates around (and around) questions about how such anthologies have been and or should be compiled and read, and a range of related questions that delicately prod the lurking but silent figure of contemporary literary theory (and theories). He also discusses intended readership at far too great a length. This is all rather tedious, but one can only hope that readers either do not start here, or if they do, that they keep going. The second half of the introduction is a superb, concise overview of each contribution, of how it works into the volume as a whole, and how it fits into the editor's vision of the project. As Leatherbarrow explains it, he hopes to capture some of the complex interrelationships of high and low culture, and "to identify areas that had an enduring impact upon, and resonance in, Dostoevskii's art and which, in some cases if not all, have not been addressed in an appropriately persistent or sophisticated way in previous critical introductions"(11). The volume itself is a great success, and the final eight pages of the introduction where he speaks about it directly could actually serve as a compelling and meaningful introduction to Dostoevskii for neophytes and seasoned readers alike. One can only hope that the first ten pages do not prevent anyone from going on.

2 The contributors, as can be expected, are all leading scholars in nineteenth-century Russian literature and Dostoevskii studies. The essay titles are directly informative, all more or less of the "Dostoevskii and X" type, but there is nothing else formulaic about the content. Some sound familiar, for example, "Dostoevskii and Psychology" (Robert L. Belknap), "Dostoevskii and Science" (Diane Oenning Thompson), or "Dostoevskii and the Intelligentsia" (Derek Offord). There are also less familiar juxtapositions, such as "Dostoevskii and the Russian Folk Heritage" (Faith Wigzell), and "Dostoevskii and Money" (Boris Christa). None of these topics is entirely new, of course, but the formulation of questions, the analysis, and the scholarship are fresh and stimulating. The manner in which Leatherbarrow has conceived the volume makes it implicit that individual essays will not focus on particular works but instead cut across Dostoevskii's oeuvre, although some still concentrate on a relatively smaller number of selected texts. Overall, and this can be confirmed by scanning the index, most of the major works, and many of the minor and/or occasional writings receive treatment in at least one of these pieces, and several reappear across a good number of the essays. Given the size of the volume, the editor can definitely be commended for achieving a balance of treatment. While I will eschew a summary of the individual articles, I would venture the opinion that they all will be judged to add to a fuller appreciation of Dostoevskii and his works. Not all readers will necessarily enjoy Gary Saul Morson's "playful" setup of his conclusion to the volume ("Conclusion: Reading Dostoevskii"), nor is it really a conclusion in any normal sense, but ultimately it delivers the kind of thoughtful and genuinely helpful perspective that its subject deserves while illuminating fundamental questions which many readers share.

3 I have some minor quibbles with this volume. The "Chronology" is quite skimpy and should either have been expanded (doubled in size), or omitted. The bibliography contains the essential references, but it, too, could have been expanded to great advantage. Furthermore, there is no recognition of the need to include some indication of the current state of Dostoevskii studies in Russia. Given the history of his treatment especially during the Soviet period, it is disappointing not to find at least one essay by a leading Russian scholar of Dostoevskii. This would also be of particular service to those readers and scholars who do not read Russian, and there are many. While the editor defines his undertaking as an edited volume bringing together the insights of "some of the finest contemporary Western Dostoevskii scholars" (10), one is left to wonder about the reason for that self-imposed limitation.Finally, and this may be trivial, it seems puzzling that Leatherbarrow has opted for the transliterated spelling (Dostoevskii)—which I feel obliged to follow, while "Dostoevsky" is much more common in both popular and scholarly publications.

4 These caveats are minor on any scale. This volume will be useful for researchers, general readers, and for the undergraduate and graduate classroom.