The Idiot

The novel begins with three strangers in a train en route to Petersburg. A young man named Prince Myshkin is returning from a Swiss sanatorium where he has been treated for the past few years for some malady similar to epilepsy. He meets a roguish young man named Rogozhin, who has an unhealthy obsession with a beautiful young woman named Nastasya Filippovna, and a nosy government official named Lebedyev, who figures prominently throughout the novel.

Upon arriving in Petersburg, Myshkin acquaints himself with many of the citizens and eventually meets, and is infatuated by, Nastasya. She is pushy, fickle, and impetuous, and bounces from fiance to fiance like a fortune hunter. Her irresistibility and psychological stronghold on the men in her life leads to her downfall.

The basis of the novel is that Myshkin is not bright, has not had much education, and traverses society with a mentality of simplistic innocence. When speaking his opinion, he struggles to articulate himself with Charlie Brown-like stammering and wishy-washiness. For this reason, people consider him an idiot, but he is a good, honest, sympathetic, and gracious person. When he comes into a large inheritance, he is blackmailed by a man who claims to be the illegitimate son of Myshkin's benefactor; but when the man's story is debunked, Myshkin befriends rather than chastises the culprit and his accomplices. Myshkin also falls in love with and becomes betrothed to a giddy girl named Aglaia, who uses his ingenuousness as a foil for her jokes and sarcasm, despite his undying devotion to her.

The novel seems to say that a saintly man, making his way in a society that is concerned with materialism and cutthroat avarice, will be considered a childish idiot for valuing honesty, kindness, and the simple things in life. Like I said, the ending is a shocker and sends a plaintive message, that in a crazy world, a sanatorium is the only place for a saint

Fan of this book? Help us introduce it to others by writing a better introduction for it. It's quick and easy, click here.

Quizzes on The Idiot
- The Idiot Quiz

Please submit a quiz here.

Recent Forum Posts on The Idiot

Prince Myshkin's full name?

I've seen it cited as being "Lyov" and sometimes as "Lev". Has anyone read the original Russian and can comment on this?

Posted By modestblues at Mon 7 Dec 2009, 1:15 PM in The Idiot || 1 Reply

Self-Loathing in The Idiot

I'm only 200 pages into it, but I've noticed the self-abuse and self-loating common among all of its characters except Myshkin. Almost every character is overly self-conscious (just like the Underground Man) and are aware of their impurity and immorality, and have accepted it. They even take pride in it, but never cease to let go of a chance to criticize themselves. *SPOILERS* It seems that Nastya ran off with Rogizn simply out of spite of herself, believing that she deserves punishment and enjoys punishment. Nastya in particular is so self-conscious that she is able to laugh at herself just as easily as she can at others. Myshkin, on the other hand, is like a little child (as he is called many times in the novel) and does not posess the hyper-consciousness of characters like the Underground Man or Hamlet, and thus is never self-loathing or self-abusive. He seems to live as if in an eternal state of meditation, of inner-calmness. It seems that through Myshkin, Dostoyevsky sees the religious experience as blissful unknowingness. As the Underground Man admitted himself in Notes from the Underground, that knowledge is the "root of all suffering". Myshkin doesn't seem to suffer, for he lives in blissful ignorance and innocence. It seems that Dostoyevsky is pessimistic of the view that the whole world can once again become this innocent child like Myshkin, for nobody really takes Myshkin seriously.

Posted By DanielBenoit at Sun 13 Sep 2009, 8:53 PM in The Idiot || 4 Replies

How aware is Myshkin?

The prince seems to appreciate that: Nastasya and Roghozin are in imminent danger, from themselves. And less so Aglaya. The probability of him averting, or even forestalling, disaster is small, and that his best efforts may be ineffectual. His selfless actions endanger himself, physically and mentally. Onlookers would have little sympathy for his noble self-sacrifices. His own fate matters little if he can be neighbour to one in need. Prince Myshkin’s always acted for the good of Ippolit, Keller, Burdovsky and Lebedev. More surprisingly, textual evidence confirms that the prince behaves in the best interests of Nastasya, Roghozin and Aglaya, throughout. The prince bears no responsibility for the disasters that eventually befall the three, and his actions probably forestall disaster, for a time. Prince Myshkin acts out of love (agape), and surely would do nothing different a second time. Despite the unfortunate outcome, his self-sacrifice for friends is admirable and heroic; and especially so considering the outcast status of Nastasya and Roghozin. John 15:13___Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Posted By Gladys at Tue 14 Jul 2009, 6:30 AM in The Idiot || 0 Replies

What themes could be surrounding Hippolite?

I see and hear about many themes surrounding the main character Prince Myshkin, but rarely any with Hippolite. He is dying and starts to notice the significance of the world and the environment around him. So what exactly, are the themes surrounding the character Hippolite?

Posted By staka at Tue 19 May 2009, 9:17 PM in The Idiot || 1 Reply

Interesting paragraphs or scenes

What could the most important or interesting paragraph (or set of paragraphs) in the novel be.. or the most interesting scene?

Posted By staka at Wed 29 Apr 2009, 5:56 PM in The Idiot || 6 Replies

The prince a "holy fool?"

I know from my studies, independant, of Russian Orthodox spirituality that one category of saints are refered to as holy fools. This is not a minor or obscure aspect of their haigiography. The great cathedral of St. Basil in Moscow is not named after the famous St. Basil who was a wise ancient scholar who was foundational to Orthodox liturgy, but of St. Basil the Holy Fool who terrorised Ivan the Terrible with his preaching. It seems to me that the Prince is clearly a member of this school of people, except for that shocking ending which at some level does not seem saintly to me. The fools may seem simple but the are portayed as stronger than the powerful forces of corruption they confront. I am sure that the princes character comes from holiness, his lack of defensiveness, his direct honesty, his giving freedom to those around him and finnally that he does not judge the souls of the people around him. Thoughts?

Posted By paul8th at Sun 1 Mar 2009, 3:55 PM in The Idiot || 2 Replies

The Idiot

I read "The Idiot" about 20 years ago. I just started rereading a new english translation of it. If I remember correctly after reading it the first time is that the gist of it was that "There is a very fine line between genius and madness", I know there is more to it but if you had to explain it in a very few words that is what I would say. Am I right or wrong? If so, why?

Posted By Alix at Mon 1 Sep 2008, 9:27 AM in The Idiot || 4 Replies

Fyodor Dostoevsky - Idiot

Hi, I am currently reading Fyodor Dostoevsky's Idiot and I would really like to know what do u think of it.... :D

Posted By Veva at Sat 12 Jul 2008, 7:45 AM in The Idiot || 19 Replies

THE ENDING: ‘like a lamb dumb before his shearer’

What are we to make of the ending of ‘The Idiot’? Some on the forum have suggested: the imitation of Christ; serious stress brings you down; a bad woman’s a man’s downfall; naivety is bad karma; and once an idiot, always an idiot. For me, the ending speaks to the noblest of love shown by the sanest of men, whose voluntary ‘burden of love’ touches and ultimately offends those around him. This post began life as a short reply on another thread but grew as I better appreciated complexities in the novel’s ending. ------------ Consider the character of Prince Myshkin. While his friends and acquaintances occasionally suggest he is simple, naïve and an idiot, they say so with little conviction. He can sway others to his generous view of the world, as instanced by the unanimous about-face in attitude of the guests at the house of General Yepanchin where the prince confronts the ‘Nihilist’ gate-crashers, Ippolit and his tipsy mates. Throughout the novel, the actions of the prince surprise, I think, because he is attuned to the needs of the moment, unfettered by the past and having ‘no thought for the morrow’ (Matthew 6:34). Is this perspective simple-minded idiocy or enlightened heroism? In living for today, his attachment to Nastasya Filippovna, Aglaya and Roghozin - not to mention Ippolit, Keller, Burdovsky and Lebedev - is always generous and even-handed: to each according to need. Impartially is particularly evident in the prince’s altruistic (astonishing) dealings with the brash, suicidal, consumptive Ippolit and his abrasive mates. The prince, who seems to love men and women alike, has little concept of being ‘in love’. Rather than romantic infatuation or lust, his interactions with Nastasya Filippovna and Aglaya suggest social naivety, embarrassment and sincere kindness - unlike other suitors in the novel. His love is compassion – he wants to help, to save, to redeem – even reaching out through marriage and beyond. He loves, he acts, without counting the cost to himself, or the suffering. (Yet he understands suffering, for he stares at and long remembers that dreadful ‘Deposition’: the poor Holbein copy, ‘at Roghozin’s in one of his gloomiest rooms, over the door’.) The focus of the prince is directed outwards, on others, as when twice deserted by Nastasya Filippovna on the brink of their wedding. 'Love so amazing, so divine'. ------------ Nearing the end, Prince Myshkin bemoans his inability to unshackle Aglaya, owing to circumstances unforeseen. But does he really suffer a breakdown when he confronts Roghozin and finds Nastasya Filippovna murdered? Unable to save her from Roghozin’s knife, we are thunderstruck that the prince appears more distressed by his failure to save the murderous Roghozin from himself. The prince has anguished on several fronts, shouldering an enormous burden of love - seemingly too much for one man - even one living authentically from moment to moment. (Dostoevsky was much influenced by the existentialism of Soren Kierkegaard, as in his ‘Works of Love’ of 1847) Yet, were Prince Myshkin given the chance to relive those final weeks, I’m sure he would do it all again, willingly and without regret. As the old doctor in Pavlofsk told Lebedev, just days before the fateful wedding day, it won’t do to dismiss the prince as mad ('no one left for keepers'). After all, the prince is prone to seizures of epilepsy rather than psychosis. He is distraught but thoroughly sane as he lies weeping, on the cheek of Roghozin. 'Jesus wept' (John 11:35). The prince had been frantic in his efforts to save Nastasya Filippovna and worried about Aglaya’s teetering future, but is finally heartbroken over the plummeting psychopath Roghozin, with whom he had exchanged crosses – his tin one for Roghozin’s gold. Does the prince mourn for all these, for Ippolit, for General Ivolgin? No. Living in the here and now, the prince mourns for the living, for Roghozin, his 'brother'! ------------ But to society, to the world, the selfless and unbounded love of the prince for the murderer of his fiancée, lying dead in the same room, is lunacy - almost an offence. Danger was looming as early as the eve of his wedding. Prophetic are the words of the prince in response to Keller (the boxer), in church at General Ivolgin’s funeral: '"I assure you, prince, that Lebedev is intriguing against you. He wants to put you under control. Imagine that! To take from you the use of your free-will and your money—that is to say, the two things that distinguish us from the animals! I have heard it said positively. It is the sober truth." The prince recollected that somebody had told him something of the kind before, and he had, of course, scoffed at it. He only laughed now, and forgot the hint at once.' The weaponry of public umbrage facing Prince Myshkin at the funeral was as nothing compared with that following the discovery of him weeping tears of gold, side by side with the murderer Roghozin. 'Greater love hath no man than this' (John 15:13). Extremes, even extremes of love, are rarely understood or tolerated by society. If Prince Myshkin has a nervous breakdown, it likely follows the universal consensus that a Swiss asylum is the place for him…the place for love, for beauty. Is this what happens to truth in our world? Back in Switzerland, ‘like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth’ (Acts 8:32). Our unfortunate 'idiot' suffers silently a very slow death…you might say, a crucifixion. And the occasional visitor to Dr Schneider’s patient sees something awful but edifying, not unlike Holbein’s ‘Deposition’. Was Prince Myshkin’s sacrifice in vain? Perhaps not, if the testimonies of virginal Vera Lebedev, forthright Lizabetha Prokofievna, and sceptical playboy Evgenie Pavlovitch matter. How fitting, if the story closes with an unlikely resurrection. ------------ Am I misrepresenting this breathtaking novel?

Posted By Gladys at Thu 17 Apr 2008, 6:28 AM in The Idiot || 6 Replies

Dostoevsky's The Idiot: Xenophobic Theme?

Hey all, Whilst browsing Amazon, I came across a customer review of The Idiot in which the author wrote: The book begins with his return to Russia as a young man, apparently cured. However, he is still labelled an ‘idiot’ because his sheltered upbringing abroad means that he doesn’t understand the complex rules governing social interactions among the Russian middle classes, and approaches these interactions with a simple good-heartedness and a willingness to do the right thing. I bought the book based largely on this review because I was interested particularly in the xenophobic element (i.e. the role his upbringing in another country plays in his so-called idiocy). I wondered whether anybody might be able to point me towards a specific passage that is related to this idea. If it helps at all, I have the Wordsworth Classics edition (1996). Thanks

Posted By inf4m0us at Thu 3 Apr 2008, 10:15 AM in The Idiot || 2 Replies

Post a New Comment/Question on The Idiot

The Idiot

Related Links:

Quizzes on The Idiot

Recent Forum Posts on The Idiot