Speculation on whether in this new millennium intelligent life will be found outside this world, and whether this world will survive its own destructive forces, must be put aside for now to contemplate two of the great issues of our time.
The first concerns the Person of the Year, Dr Tony O'Reilly, and it has to do with concern as to his whereabouts. The second concerns the beautiful Ms Andrea Corr, and it has to do with her earnestness: whether it can survive shocking revelations concerning not just one, but two, of the great literary and intellectual giants she has recently encountered.
First, a story in the Sunday Business Post reported that some of the O'Reilly family interests in Independent News and Media were switched from an Irish-registered company to a Cypriot-registered company to avoid capital gains tax here. Dr O'Reilly is not tax resident in this State.
But if he is not resident here and if his family interests in Independent Newspapers are not here, where is he and where are his family interests?
Former rugby colleagues recall how he used to disappear for long spells during rugby matches. Perhaps his residency arrangements are another manifestation of how he has deployed his sporting prowess to his financial affairs.
And now to the beautiful Andrea Corr.
As a millennium frolic, the Sunday Independent arranged for what they called "a wise old man" and "a beautiful young woman" to visit St Kevin's monastic site at Glendalough for photographs. The beautiful young woman was, of course, Ms Corr, and the wise old man was Dr Conor Cruise O'Brien.
The wise old man acknowledged in a radio interview last year that he paid no tax, not just on income derived from his literary work but also on all income from his journalistic work because of the generous tax indulgence introduced by Charles Haughey in 1968.
That indulgence was intended to cover income derived from artistic work only, but it has been ingeniously extended in three instances that I know of to include income from journalistic work. This means Dr O'Brien pays almost no income tax and has not done so for decades, which, in the eyes of some, must make him a very wise old man indeed.
The photo-shoot had a miserable outcome, in spite of the beauty of Ms Corr and the familiarly defiant jutting jaw of the wise old man. Afterwards, he and Ms Corr shared refreshments and exchanged millennium thoughts.
Ms Corr told the wise old man she rather liked the works of Fyodor Dostoevsky and said, according to him, that she was especially affected by the quality of compassion in his (Dostoevsky's) work.
Writing last Sunday about his reaction to this confidence, he stated: "I wondered whether I should tell her of the dark side of Dostoevsky, which was no less real than his compassionate side." He continued: "Her earnestness told me she would be able to take the dark side of Dostoevsky in her stride without the knowledge of it lessening her admiration for the artist."
THIS prompted him to tell her: "Following the assassination in 1881 of the Tsar Alexander II, who had relieved some of the Jewish disabilities in the Russian empire, the persecution of the Jews was resumed under Alexander III. The chief organiser of the persecution, on behalf of the Tsar, was Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev, and Pobedonostsev's most trusted adviser on the implementation of anti-Jewish policy was Dostoevsky."
He claimed "Andrea took in this account with close attention and some shock. She will never, I think, see Dostoevsky again in quite the same light."
Concluding his account of his conversation with the beautiful Ms Corr, the wise old man wrote: "I felt she has the internal strength not to be shaken by a revelation of that kind but be able to put it properly into perspective."
Ms Corr might find it helpful to put Dr O'Brien properly into perspective by the following information.
He was right about the anti-Semitic regime inaugurated by Alexander III following the murder of his father, Alexander II on March 13th, 1881. He was right, also, about the influence of Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev on Alexander III. He was right in the suggestion that there had been an association between Pobedonostsev and Dostoevsky.
Pobedonostsev had been a contributor to a magazine edited for a while by Dostoevsky. He was right, too, in suggesting that Dostoevsky was anti-Semitic, as indeed were most Russians at the time, including the other great liberal writers, Tolstoy and Turgenev. But the claim that Dostoevsky was Pobedonostsev's "most trusted adviser on the implementation of anti-Jewish policy", following the assassination of Alexander II, is cods wallop.
It is cods wallop for the following reason: Dostoevsky was dead.
Fyodor Dostoevsky died on January 28th, 1881, 61/2 weeks before the event that sparked the renewal of anti-Semitism occurred. Thus, he could not have had any part at all in relation to the implementation of the anti-Jewish policy or in relation to the implementation of any policy inaugurated by Alexander III.
Yes, there had been some correspondence between Dostoevsky and Pobedonostsev on the Jewish "issue" some two years before Alexander II was assassinated. But how, plausibly, could that be bloated into a "most trusted adviser" relationship some two years later when Dostoevsky was dead?
Anyway, the idea that Dostoevsky was ever in a position to influence State policy on anything, let alone the implementation of State policy, is absurd.
Can Ms Corr be expected to have the internal strength to put the revelations concerning both Fyodor Dostoevsky and the wise old man she met in Glendalough properly into perspective? Although she will never, I think, see the wise old man in quite the same light, perhaps her earnestness will help her to take this side of him in her stride, without the knowledge of it lessening her admiration for him.
e-mail: vbrowne@irish-times.ie