| 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ilmar Vene. Tammsaare and Dostoyevsky: a Comparison of Two Worldviews |
2007, nr. 5 |
A. H. Tammsaare believed that sooner or later
every new religion would degenerate into superstition, thus causing
harm. This is why the most humane attitude, in his opinion, involved
dismissal of religiousness from the start. That made Tammsaare
prefer the naturalist worldview (despite its deficiencies), which
had dominated European thought since the 19th century. Dostoyevsky,
however, saw the greatest evil in lack of faith. That was the
woe, he believed, afflicting Western Europe, where lack of money
was the only "sin" recognized. Dostoyevsky's only hope
was that Greek Orthodoxy, predominating in Russia, where Christianity
had, in his opinion, retained its genuine integrity, would triumph
over Europe and amend the otherwise hopeless situation.
Consequently, what one of the two authors considered the ultimate
affliction was regarded as a source of hope by the other. And
yet Tammsaare was convinced that Dostoyevsky belonged to the best
of authors, albeit not beyond belles lettres. The Slavophilic
views that Dostoyevsky adhered to were, however, not appraised
by Tammsaare. The ultimate aim of the article is to explicate
the most obvious difference between Orthodoxy and naturalism.
Keywords: A. H. Tammsaare, Fyodor
Dostoyevsky, conception of the world, orthodox.
Ilmar Vene (b. 1951), Tartu University Library,
librarian
| 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|