Никола Милошевић и Јустин Поповић о делу Ф. М. Достојевског
Nikola Milošević and Justin Popović on the Work of F.M. Dostoevsky’s

Summary/Abstract: This paper is focused on the approach that Nikola Milošević and Justin Popović have towards the work of F.M. Dostoevsky. Taking into consideration that both authors viewed F.M. Dostoevsky not only as a literary creator but as a thinker, this paper includes the analyses of F.M. Dostoevsky’s literary opus, as well as the analysis of his opus as a thinker, interwoven with anthropological, ideological, and social topics. In the course of the analysis of F.M. Dostoevsky’s literary work, different methodological approaches of our authors have been noted, as well as different conclusions that are very often contradictory. They oppose one another, since Nikola Milošević sees the religious course in the novels as the agent that impedes the unity of the work and brings about unfavourable consequences regarding the value of artistic expression. Justin Popović, on the other hand, emphasizes the religious course as being the most valuable aspect of Dostoevsky’s literary opus. However, besides indisputable differences and contradictions, there are still agreements in these two literary experts’ interpretations, and even, at times, the same conclusions. Therefore, apart from the fact that this paper tries to illustrate the differences and the similarities in analysis, it also focuses on outlining the origins of these interpretations and the possibilities they offer from the perspective of two existential extremes. It is apparent that the analyses of these authors straddle the boundary between philosophy and literature, triggered by existential inquiries. The analysis of Dostoevsky’s body of work as a thinker is also based on different methodological approaches and outcomes, in which there are discrepancies and similarities. The discrepancies are based on the fact that Nikola Milošević does not consider the transformation most experts have accepted, including Justin Popović, namely the transformation Dostoevsky experienced after Siberia. The point on which these two authors agree is the political socialism analysis to which F.M. Dostoevsky was very dedicated, as well as that the unification of people is possible only when the moral revival takes place and not as the product of any imposed system. This paper notes that the outcomes and conclusions are also conditioned by the authors’ perspective of the world enabled by the universalism of thought, the complexity of F.M. Dostoevsky’s personality, and their irreconcilable relationship with this world’s unalterable things, with death and with the ephemeral. Different answers through the dedicated search of the depths of their being, where they both met the work of F.M. Dostoevsky, led to different interpretations of the same works. However, these interpretations are not mutually exclusive, but rather they are capable of creating a timeless dialogue significant to the whole of Serbian thought and literature.

• Details
• Contents