There’s so much to analyze in this book and it’s fascinating. The first main theme can be summed up with this statement:
This statement not only reflects Aglaya and her mother, but Ippolit and Myshkin. Both have little life experience and feel like outcasts in the world; in order to be accepted by society, one turns to Enlightenment philosophy, the other tries to be as selfless and loving as possible. Both are ridiculed and mocked, and nobody takes them seriously; both end up unhappy. The quote above also reflects one of the central themes, that deep morality and compassion are becoming incompatible and outdated in an increasingly hopeless, materialistic, soulless world; but at the same time, that the science and Enlightenment ideas promoted in the 19th century would not necessarily lead to happiness and spiritual fulfillment.
At first, I thought Rogozhin was supposed to embody doom and hopelessness, but later I realized that he’s just been heavily twisted by them. He’s a person who was perhaps once religious, but had seen such terrible things that he was left with absolutely no hope in God nor humanity; the Holbein painting I mentioned on the other page symbolizes his inner self. He isn’t interested in “Enlightenment” ideas like Ippolit; he is drawn to Myshkin’s benevolence and faith, despite being unable to agree with Myshkin. He likes Myshkin but believes he is naive. Rogozhin has the darkest worldviews of anyone in the book, and this allows him to become a very corrupt, cynical person. However, they allow him to understand Barashkov’s suffering and mental state in ways Myshkin cannot. That leads me to another point, on which I shall quote Rogozhin himself:
This is another key idea in the book, this time concerning Myshkin’s personality. Besides criticizing Russian society, the other point of the book is posing the question of whether someone like Myshkin, naive and pure, can integrate into such a society. He cannot—he wants to do so, but doesn’t fully understand what he’s wishing for himself. He wants to love everyone but doesn’t realize how mentally tolling it is; he wants to find his place in high society, but doesn’t understand how dishonest its members are; as a youth in Switzerland, he read a lot of books about Russia, which made him interested in returning there, but he doesn’t fully understand what the country is like, nor the “Russian soul.”
The scene between Rogozhin and Barashkova at the latter’s party highlighted the key difference between Rogozhin and Myshkin’s love for Nastasya. Rogozhin’s was a raw and obsessive passion, lust; a kind of love almost anyone in society is capable of, even “drunken boors” like himself. Dostoyevsky somewhat looks down on this romantic love; he believes it is almost selfish. Myshkin’s, however, was a kind of love that is rare, purer, and very difficult to achieve: unconditional compassion, “agape”.
Someone in my Dostoyevsky book club once posed the question, “Who do you think suffered the most at the end of the novel?” Probably the hedgehog, as it was left without an owner. For a serious answer, though, I’d say Nastasya. She hadn’t fully succumbed to hopelessness like Rogozhin did, there was still a part of her yearning for love and forgiveness. Seeing how she alternated between seeking and rejecting Myshkin’s compassion/“redemption” throughout the novel, it’s possible that at the last moment, her views switched again, and she hated everything she had let herself become, and wished everything was otherwise. That she’d chosen to start anew, lead a peaceful, happy life, with Myshkin instead of Rogozhin, or at least get away from Rogozhin. (When she stayed at Rogozhin’s, she repeatedly mentioned a wish to go to Orel.) But by then, it was too late, and there was nothing she could do.
Thank you for your interest. If you’ve read the book, I would be delighted to hear your own thoughts; my Discord username is valour2687 if you’d like to share them.
Page created May 30, 2024. Last updated July 5, 2024