Did Myshkin love Nastasya or Aglaya?

[Gladys]

The Prince admired the beauty of both women, yet felt acute compassion for Nastasya Filippovna. Towards the end he expresses some doubt of loving either. He is desperate to contact Aglaya after the final confrontation but is relatively calm as Nastasya Filippovna flees in her wedding dress.

What is clear is that he loved such as Rogozhin, Ippolit, Keller, Burdovsky and Lebedev, as well as other more likable characters.

He loved mankind.

What puzzles me is why does he regress into idiocy at the end? Is the burden of love simply too great?

[bazarov]

I think he felt sorry for Nastya, he didn't love her in way we consider love. That's what made her so special, more that Aglaya or anyone else.

Maybe her death; a death of a person who he liked the most made too big impact on his soul and he couldn't deal with it.

[Gladys]

Maybe her death; a death of a person who he liked the most...
Is there evidence that Prince Myshkin liked Nastasya Filippovna the most? Rather, her need (and Rogozhin’s?) had been the greatest. Maybe that’s why he was so confident he could justify to Aglaya his imminent wedding: if only he could talk with her (ultimately saving her from the Polish adventure).

I'm only now starting to understand! For the prince, the concept of 'in love' is irrelevant. 'Love' means compassion in action - works of love - nothing more.

In the end, Prince Myshkin is shattered more by the fate of Rogozhin than by the almost inevitable and freely chosen death of Nastasya Filippovna at his hands. Unfairly, she long considered herself ruined, whereas Rogozhin ruins himself despite the best efforts of the prince. Back in Switzerland, he mourns for the living.

As Dr Schneider says, and is universally agreed, "An idiot!", although…



...after leaving the prince, the doctor [in Pavlofsk] said to Lebedev: "If all such people were put under restraint, there would be no one left for keepers."

[ramana moorthy]

Is there evidence that Prince Myshkin liked Nastasya Filippovna the most? Rather, her need (and Rogozhin’s?) had been the greatest. Maybe that’s why he was so confident he could justify to Aglaya his imminent wedding: if only he could talk with her (ultimately saving her from the Polish adventure).

I'm only now starting to understand! For the prince, the concept of 'in love' is irrelevant. 'Love' means compassion in action - works of love - nothing more.

In the end, Prince Myshkin is shattered more by the fate of Rogozhin than by the almost inevitable and freely chosen death of Nastasya Filippovna at his hands. Unfairly, she long considered herself ruined, whereas Rogozhin ruins himself despite the best efforts of the prince. Back in Switzerland, he mourns for the living.

As Dr Schneider says, and is universally agreed, "An idiot!", although…




Prince Myshkin's tragedy resembles that of Hamlet. Both are uncertain judges of human nature and suffer from a morbid sense of melancholy that borders on insanity. Myshkin loves Roghozhin and Nastasya -- both passionate creatures who suffer from bouts of selflove or selfmortification.

On the other hand, Agalya loves the prince and if he had reciprocated it, that relationship would have redeemed the prince by providing him stability and social security. Hence his cruel neglect of Agalya is a tragic error of judgement and he lost the only opportunity he had of saving himself from insanity.

[Etienne]

I do think he loved Nastasya, the trials she made him go through did make him forget his love to some extent, but in the depths of himself he still loved her, even though he loved Aglaya perhaps on a more tender note.

I think another argument toward this, which might be seen as dubious however, is that the Nastasya type of women is a leitmotiv in Dostoevsky's works, and that in all of them the love relation was more complicated than just "I love you! - Me too! *kiss kiss*" and that in The Idiot, the relation has the same direction (except that it's a love... square?) the outcome is simply a bit more blurry and disconcerting, but I believe that the love relations in this story cannot just be seen with a one-sided, objective and manichean eye.

"What puzzles me is why does he regress into idiocy at the end? Is the burden of love simply too great?"

Burden of love? I mean when I read this book, my mind was running 100mph trying to follow everything that's happening, which is something considering that physically not much is happening, however psychologically this book is so dense (especially that i read this book in about 3 days). And then when you read the situation at the end where he regresses in idiocy, how can one think it's the "burden of love"? It's simply the ultimate shock of a long stress-burning story (especially for a character like the Prince), and what a shock! I mean, who in this situation wouldn't suffer from a nervous shock? I the Prince's case, his character, his fragile condition mixed with accumulated stress and a final nervous shock led to a great nervous breakdown which destroyed the fragile bases of the mental sanity he had built in Switzerland.

[B-Mental]

Yes, I think he loved them both, but on different levels. It was obvious that he felt he had missed out on his first love, and he was truly broken by her loss. He didn't want Natasha to go through the same loss.

[Quark]

I'm actually reading The Idiot right now, so I'm viewing these posts rather selectively and trying not to see anything that will give away the ending.

By page 300 it's not entirely clear what Myshkin's feeling for Nastasya are, but it does seem like Myshkin does love her. He notices something noble and attractive in her soul barried beneath her capricious--and often hurtful--attitudes. This comes out most apparently in that scene that ends the first part of the story: that hectic one where Myshkin proposes to her. Myshkin believes that Nastasya is ultimately a decent, loveable person trapped in unbearable surroundings and relationships. Whether this is true or not is difficult to know when I've only read half the novel, but it does seem like Myshkin was, at least at one point, in love with Nastasya.

[Gladys]

Prince Myshkin's tragedy resembles that of Hamlet. Both are uncertain judges of human nature and suffer from a morbid sense of melancholy that borders on insanity.

While I agree with your description of Hamlet, Prince Myshkin seems to me an exquisite judge of human nature in that he perceives the good in everyone he meets, including Ippolit, Keller, Burdovsky and Lebedev. How is such openness melancholy?

Isn't Myshkin's 'insanity' merely the harsh and unanimous judgment of the world on his compassion - nay love - for the reprobate Rogozhin? A man of sorrows, the prince is truly a follower of Christ.


Hence his cruel neglect of Agalya is a tragic error of judgement and he lost the only opportunity he had of saving himself from insanity.
Cruel neglect? Surely the Prince was sandwiched between saving his friends, Nastasya Filippovna and Rogozhin, and providing stability for the floundering Agalya. A terrible choice, but he chooses bravely, sacrificing himself!

[WillieD]

"What puzzles me is why does he regress into idiocy at the end? Is the burden of love simply too great?"


I think during the final portion of the book the Prince is loosing it a bit. He has the breakdown when he is confronted by Roghozin(which BTW sounds like a prescription skin cream). And he is constantly in dread of N.F. I was about ready to loose my marbles when he decided to marry N.F., and then all the more so when she bolted on him. As a reader, if I was the prince, I would have lost it due to all the pain and embarassment I had caused Aglaya and her family. But that's not what does him in. He looses it when he finds N.F. dead. He was unable to save her from Roghozin. The thing which he was dreading and racing to prevent has occurred. The shock of it is too much.
So I guess, thinking about it all, he must have had greater attachment to N.F. then to Aglaya. Because it was the demise of N.F. which caused him the greatest emotional trauma. Or maybe his compassion for N.F. was greater then his fondness for Aglaya.
Anyway - being prone to these seizures of Idiocy, and under increasing pressure - Aglaya - the failed wedding - etc... this final blow was too much and he lost it.
When I was done with the book - I was about ready to go to Switzerland myself!

[Gladys]

Is the burden of love simply too great?

I hope to better address the broad questions you raise, WillieD, in a new thread, ‘Greater love hath no man’, where I’ll give my understanding of the novel’s theme and marvellous ending. For me, the essence of ‘The Idiot’ is how selfless and heroic love fares in our mediocre and conformist world.

In brief, there is no evidence ‘the Prince is loosing it a bit’ before he sees Nastasya Filippovna’s body, and not much evidence thereafter. The ‘final blow’ may have been the arrest of Roghozin, his surviving ‘ward’, or more likely his committal by ‘friends’ to a Swiss asylum.

The ‘pain and embarrassment’ the prince ‘caused Aglaya and her family’ is dwarfed by his urgent mission to save others. His ‘attachment’ to Roghozin, Nastasya Filippovna and Aglaya varies with their need for him. ‘His compassion for’ Roghozin is ultimately the greatest, because Nastasya Filippovna is no more, Aglaya is permanently out of reach, and TB has taken Ippolit.

You write, ‘When I was done with the book - I was about ready to go to Switzerland myself!’ My feeling was the opposite. I was overwhelmed by the selflessness of an epileptic, the sanest of men, who all now considered merely ‘an idiot’.

[ramana moorthy]

[QUOTE=Gladys;503053]While I agree with your description of Hamlet, Prince Myshkin seems to me an exquisite judge of human nature in that he perceives the good in everyone he meets, including Ippolit, Keller, Burdovsky and Lebedev. How is such openness melancholy?

Prince Myshkin shows compassion to all of them alike -- but such compassion is not enough to elevate him to the position of a true and strong Christian. He is constantly dogged by uncertainities which point to a certain selfdoubt or inability to make a choice. When someone fails to make a choice between good and evil,all his compassion will only do more harm than good to humanity. Then the prince's treatment of Agalya shows him as an erratic and inconsistent youth rather than a mature and "exquisite" judge of humanity.

[ramana moorthy]

[QUOTE=Gladys;503053]While I agree with your description of Hamlet, Prince Myshkin seems to me an exquisite judge of human nature in that he perceives the good in everyone he meets, including Ippolit, Keller, Burdovsky and Lebedev. How is such openness melancholy?

Prince Myshkin shows compassion to all of them alike -- but such compassion is not enough to elevate him to the position of a true and strong Christian. He is constantly dogged by uncertainities which point to a certain selfdoubt or inability to make a choice. When someone fails to make a choice between good and evil,all his compassion will only do more harm than good to humanity. Then the prince's treatment of Agalya shows him as an erratic and inconsistent youth rather than a mature and "exquisite" judge of humanity.

[Gladys]

such compassion is not enough to elevate him to the position of a true and strong Christian

Christian or not, Prince Myshkin radically obeys the commandment, “love thy neighbour as thyself”. In doing so, the prince is ‘dogged by uncertainties which point to a certain self-doubt’, as were Elijah, Job and the Old Testament prophets.

The ‘choice between good and evil’ is sometimes problematic. Terrible is the prince’s choice: either be loyal to Aglaya, or abandon God-forsaken Roghozin and Nastasya Filippovna. The prince chose for the greater good, although fate was unkind in this instance. How can one criticise ‘the prince's treatment of Agalya’, when saving the murderous Roghozin and the tragic Nastasya Filippovna was clearly a matter of life and death? That the prince failed, was in the hands of God.

Even divine compassion may, in the short term, ‘do more harm than good to humanity’. Christ was betrayed, deserted by all and crucified. That Christ failed (from a contemporary standpoint), was in the hands of God.

[matt_d]

I just got through reading the Idiot (blew my mind). Personally I don't feel the prince loved either lady, at least not in the way they loved him. I feel the prince was unable to understand their love in the same way that a child doesn't truly understand romantic love. The choice to be with Nastasya over Aglaya shows the true nature and defining characteristic of the prince: he chose to save Nastasya over his own happiness. He wanted to be with Aglaya but his reflex reaction was selflessness; this is what makes the prince so special.

I believe the prince reverted to an idiot state out of both shock and confusion. Although he knew Rhogozin was capable of killing, to be faced with the act after suffering so much already was too much for him. I believe he literally became unable to comprehend the people and actions he saw in front of him. His transformation also makes the story come more or less full-circle and is a somewhat poetic end. Dostoyevsky once wrote that he believed readers would be unhappy with the way the novel ended but that upon further reflection would agree that it could have not ended any other way.

This may belong in thread all by itself, but did the prince actually change the outcome of anybody's life in the novel? The text actually states a number of people that basically went back to living their life in the conclusion. I think that Nastasya's and Rhogozin's fates would have been about the same. Koyla, Yegovney, and perhaps Adleaia (the middle sister) may have been changed by the influence of the prince but not drastically. My curiosity is Aglaya. Would she have married Ganya or did her personality and restlessness mean she was destined to be unlucky in love?

I'm thinking of reading The Brothers of Karamazov next. It's supposedly Dostoyevsky's best. Has anybody read it?

[Gladys]

Although he knew Rhogozin was capable of killing, to be faced with the act after suffering so much already was too much for him.

The prince, of course, loves Roghozin and mourns terribly for him.


...did the prince actually change the outcome of anybody's life in the novel?

Perhaps not, but he gave all in love.


I'm thinking of reading The Brothers of Karamazov next.?

Reading The Brothers of Karamazov kindled my love of literature.

[legokangpalla]

one more thing....the introduction on my edition described the novel "an appropriation of Jesus Christ's crucification and life. However, in my opinion, Prince Myshkin was everything but a Christ, their moral strength is just far too different. Myshkin and Jesus both offered unconditional love and forgiveness. However, Myshkin lost his mind on grief, whereas Christ chose death out of his free will as his final and strongest act of love( in which I don't quite understand being an atheist).

Anyone agree?

[Gladys]

Anyone agree?

I agree with your all propositions except, perhaps, the implication that Prince Myshkin's grieving end is in some way negative. Reread the final page.


In the aftermath of Nastasya Filippovna's murder, the prince has been crucified by society, while his friends draw back offended. Back in Switzerland, "like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth" (Acts 8:32), our unfortunate "idiot" suffers silently the slow death of one crucified. 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.

Rather than a Christ figure, the prince is more akin to Soren Kierkegaard's knight of faith. The prince is crushed but never, for a moment, doubts the temporal triumph of the good.

[Captain Pike]

Sure he loved them both -- just like I love Jodie Foster and, let's see, Amanda Peet, okay?

Just like in eighth grade, as long as one was interested, he went after the other. But on the other hand, they were pretty bad head cases themselves. Agala just toyed with him all the time -- that would piss me off! And the other one, a trophy girlfriend -- high maintenance and, well, she should've been high-performance, but it doesn't really get into much of that.

[aliengirl]

Finished "The Idiot" last night at 2 o'clock. I was so overwhelmed (yes, this is the perfect word) that I could not sleep afterwards. It struck me much more than "Crime and Punishment" which I read just before "The Idiot". My head was in a whirl. Never dreamed that the novel would end in a circular way.


For me, the essence of ‘The Idiot’ is how selfless and heroic love fares in our mediocre and conformist world.

The ‘pain and embarrassment’ the prince ‘caused Aglaya and her family’ is dwarfed by his urgent mission to save others. His ‘attachment’ to Roghozin, Nastasya Filippovna and Aglaya varies with their need for him. ‘His compassion for’ Roghozin is ultimately the greatest, because Nastasya Filippovna is no more, Aglaya is permanently out of reach, and TB has taken Ippolit.



Thanks for this explanation. At first I was quite unhappy about the end, almost angry. But then I realized that such a pure soul as P.Myshkin could not survive in this "sane" world. I agree that in his love and compassion for humankind he is like Christ. And now, I don't think that the end is very negative. (Anyway, it is better for Myshkin to go to Switzerland than to get married to Aglaya who would have toyed with his love all his life. Silly woman!)
As for his love could change people or not, I'd site the example of Evgenie Pavlovitch and Keller. Both of them became certainly better and more compassionate human beings.

[Gladys]

(Anyway, it is better for Myshkin to go to Switzerland than to get married to Aglaya who would have toyed with his love all his life. Silly woman!)

True but rather beside the point. The prince would have married Aglaya purely to save her: an act of selfless love.

There little evidence that Prince Myshkin liked Nastasya Filippovna the most. Rather, her need (and Rogozhin’s) had been the greatest. Maybe that’s why Myshkin was so confident he could justify to Aglaya his imminent wedding: if only he could talk with her. The prince understood the need to save Aglaya from herself...from what became her destructive Polish adventure.

[aliengirl]

I think the marriage between Prince Myshkin and Aglaya would have been a failure for Prince would not have been able to save her from her misadventures. Initially she seemed to have some sense but her meeting with Nastasya proved otherwise. Aglaya was too haughty to value the love of Myshkin. She could have had a Polish adventure irrespective of her marriage. (It does not cancel your argument that Myshkin's love originated from a sense of saving others.)

[Gladys]

I think the marriage between Prince Myshkin and Aglaya would have been a failure for Prince would not have been able to save her from her misadventures.

Exactly so! But "love does not alter the beloved, it alters itself".

Failure or success is here a matter of perspective. In the end, society adjudges a dismal failure the prince's relationships with Nastasya Filippovna, Aglaya and Roghozin. Whereas success for Prince Myshkin relates only to selfless commitment, to love, and is independent of outcome. The prince acts out of love and, of course, must do so again given the same circumstances, regardless of the cost to himself.

[Theunderground]

I think dostoevsky conclusively proves in this tale that there is a incomparable unbridgeable gulf between real love and pity. It also shows the failure in reality of 'universal' love. To me its also an indictment on the accepted message of christ and any kind of socialist utopian brotherhood of man. To redeem christs failure the Alyosha of TBK displays a surer and more realistic message on how love/compassion can be realised by his befriending of the boys and his message of eternal love starting from practical deeds and affection.