Go home!



NOTE: This is a fan page.
Dr. Leithart does not have a Facebook account.

RECENT ENTRIES
-Moving Day
-Senecan Pepys
-Gentlemanly Ethics
-Crossed out
-Seneca in English
-Sermon notes
-Pop Culture
-Unchained Bible
-Res Publica
-Spiritual commerce
-Draw near to hear
-Musical evangelism
-Voice of the Martyrs
-Trinity Institute: Norman Shepherd Says
-Trinity Institute: A Student Perspective
-For My Name’s Sake
-Iron sinews
-Sermon notes
-Seeking worshipers
-Responsive craft
CATEGORY ARCHIVES
  • LINKS
    - Biblical Horizons
    - Covenant Worldview Institute
    - Theologia
    FEED

    CONTACT

    Comments:
    leithart@leithart.com

    Problems:
    webmaster@leithart.com





    |
    |

    Literature: Literary Icon

    [Print] | [PDF] | [Email]

    William Leatherbarrow makes the intriguing suggestion that Dostoevsky’s “non-Euclidian” response to the Inan’s Grand Inquisitor poem in the “Russian Monk” is part of “Dostoevsky’s professed desire to show his readers the way to the Church is shipwrecked on the inadequacy of the realistic novel as a vehicle for religious or moral persuasion.  The strength of this genre lies in the subjecting of experience to analysis.  The affirmation of faith and the presentation of the ideal require something quite different: the synthesis afforded by the poetic image.”  The Russian Monk is thus an “artistic picture.”

    In response to Ivan, Dostoevsky gives us not a competing argument, nor even a competing narrative, but an icon.

    posted by Peter J. Leithart on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 at 6:02 am