conception of a short-story other than that it is not so long as other
narratives. This judgment of the short-story obtained until the
beginning of the nineteenth century, when a new version of its meaning
was given, and an enlarged vision of its possibilities was experienced
by a number of writers almost simultaneously. In the early centuries
of story-telling there was only one purpose in mind--that of narrating
for the joy of the telling and hearing. The story-tellers sacrificed
unity and totality of effect as well as originality for an
entertaining method of reciting their incidents.

The story of _Ruth_ and the _Prodigal Son_ are excellent short tales,
but they do not fulfill the requirements of our modern short-story for
the reason that they are not constructed for one single impression,
but are in reality parts of possible longer stories. They are, as it
were, parts of stories not unlike _Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde_ and _A
Lear of the Steppes_, and lack those complete and concise artistic
effects found in the short-stories, _Markheim_ and _Mumu_, by the same
authors. Both _Ruth_ and the _Prodigal Son_ are exceptionally well
told, possess a splendid moral tone, and are excellent prophecies of
what the nineteenth century has developed for us in the art of
short-story writing.

The Greeks did very little writing in prose until the era of their
decadence, and showed little instinct to use the concise and unified
form of the short-story. The conquering Romans followed closely in the
paths of their predecessors and did little work in the shorter
narratives. The myths of Greece and Rome were not bound by facts, and
opened a wonderland where writers were free to roam. The epics were
slow in movement, and presented a list of loosely organized stories
arranged about some character like Ulysses or AEneas.