September / Russia Reading: The Idiot by Dostoevsky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexei

What actually puzzles me is that Aglaya is supposed to be like her, after all Elizabetha Prokofievna says so herself ...I mean I can't see how to compare the rather rational Aglaya with Elizabetha's nervous behaviour and moodiness.

---

The final chapter adds to our understanding of Lizabetha Prokofievna. The testimonies of virginal Vera Lebedev, forthright Lizabetha Prokofievna and skeptical playboy Evgenie Pavlovitch concerning the committed prince, suggest an unlikely resurrection: with the two Marys and Salome visiting an empty Swiss tomb.

Lizabetha Prokofievna, when she saw poor Muishkin, in his enfeebled and humiliated condition, had wept bitterly. Apparently all was forgiven him.

Lizabetha Prokofievna seethes with the same sincerity and subjective passion as her naive daughter, Aglaya:

She [Aglaya] was so fascinated that, even before marrying him, she joined a committee that had been organized abroad to work for the restoration of Poland; and further, she visited the confessional of a celebrated Jesuit priest, who made an absolute fanatic of her.

An unlikely resurrection?

After each visit to Schneider's establishment, Evgenie Pavlovitch writes another letter...In these letters is to be detected, and in each one more than the last, a growing feeling of friendship and sympathy.

when i read this book it blew me away. everything that can be seen in todays society laid bare in the book

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jikan myshkin

when i read this book it blew me away. everything that can be seen in todays society laid bare in the book

---

I have a like sentiment. I am not even half-way through the book and I am blown away by it. I was reading last night and just could not seem to put this novel down. I started it kind of late for the discussion but I am so happy to say I am making wonderul progress and know I can't wait to get back to reading it. It is a real page turner and the characters totally have me captivated. I love this book and think that feeling will continue until the end - the very last page.

Gladys, I've read your post, but I am afraid I still can't really understand. The problem is I haven't finished the book yet, so I'll need some time till I get to the passages you've quoted. I think I'll understand better when I read them :D

Hi Everybody!

I am making good progress with my reading...I read slowly and I don't wish to do otherwise with this book, given the quality of the writing and the intricacy of the characters and plot. I just passed the part when the group of men came into the gathering and Kolya read the long letter of their demands upon the prince and then he answered them; I believe now I am to the part where Ganya intercedes on his behalf. Wow, that was a very interesting scene but so far my favorites were the party with Natashia throwing the bundle of money into the fire and all of her seemingly erractic behavior and also the scene prior to that when Rogeozhin barged into the house of Ganya's family. I also found fascinating the scene in which the prince went to visit Rogeozhin and especially the part about them switching the crosses (I have a really bad feeling about that) and the part about the painting over the doorway. Wow, that scene was amazing, even the part where R marches the prince through the house to where his mother is and she holds her hand up to him and blesses him.

I tried not to read too far ahead here in the posts, but then I did read some I probably should not have and hope I did not spoil the ending for myself. Just to note to those who have posted. If you do tell about the ending or something grealy significant near the end could you please put SPOILER before that part, so I and others don't read it, until they finish the novel?

I have a few problems keeping the various names straight, but that is usual with me and Russian novels. I really need to write them all down and keep a card by me, for reference, as to the various characters and their alternate names. I am a bit confused at this point about one character - Lebedyev. When the prince went back and encountered him teaching his own children and he seemed to be trying to swindle the prince for money, because now he was a widower and 'his poor children were suffering and hungry', I could not clearly recall when this character, Lebedyev. I did recall when he was first introduced into the story. Can someone fill me in a little better on this character and when he first appeared? I don't want to lose time searching back into the text, since I want to progress with my reading, so I can comment more in this discussion group.

Edit: I failed to mention that two parts in the story have also greatly fascinated me and I believe they directly relate. One was the part when the prince was talking about the execution, and the 'second' before the guillotine blade fell upon the victim. I thought that whole passage extremely deep and interesting and I have not been able to stop thinking about it since. I realised there is much meaning in that passage and felt it also fortold some future event or events.

The other was when the prince would speak of that 'second', when all clarity seemed to come to him and his sense of the world was heightened...the 'second' before he would lapse into an epileptic fit. Also, I was wondering if this is an accurate description of what people do experience who have these seizures? How did the author come up with his description? Did he have first hand knowledge of such things or was it entirely fictional?

I believe these concepts of the 'second' both relate to each other - both anticipate a kind of death - one actual death and one could result in death or oblivion of some sort, perhaps worse than death. They certainly are interesting to consider in relation to each other. They both also bring up the whole concept of 'time'...one that continually fascintes me...how we perceive time at different moments of our lives.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one taking more than a month to read this (great) book. I am also highly enjoying it and hope that this thread will remain active in the coming days/weeks.

Thanks Janine for warning about possible spoilers...

Also, I agree with you Janine about the names and the difficulty not to get mixed up!! but yet again, as you mentioned it is something rather common with Russian books!! I mean, first of all the names are usually quite hard to remember, but in addition to that they keep giving each other nicknames and this is REALLY confusing.

Well, the only thing I can tell you is that I got used to it after a while ad I'm sure you will too... So hang in there ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Lebedyev...Can someone fill me in a little better on this character and when he first appeared?

---

The fine detail in your last post, Janine, refreshes memories long forgotten. Moreover, I had not appreciated that Lebedeff was the clerk on the train to Petersburg, talking with Rogojin and the prince in Chapter 1.

"Oh, but I do know, as it happens," said the clerk in an aggravating manner. "Lebedeff knows all about her. You are pleased to reproach me, your excellency, but what if I prove that I am right after all? Nastasia Phillpovna's family name is Barashkoff--I know, you see-and she is a very well known lady, indeed, and comes of a good family, too. She is connected with one Totski, Afanasy Ivanovitch, a man of considerable property, a director of companies, and so on, and a great friend of General Epanchin, who is interested in the same matters as he is."

"My eyes!" said Rogojin, really surprised at last. "The devil take the fellow, how does he know that?"

"Why, he knows everything--Lebedeff knows everything! I was a month or two with Lihachof after his father died, your excellency, and while he was knocking about--he's in the debtor's prison now--I was with him, and he couldn't do a thing without Lebedeff; and I got to know Nastasia Philipovna and several people at that time."

"Nastasia Philipovna? Why, you don't mean to say that she and Lihachof--" cried Rogojin, turning quite pale.

"No, no, no, no, no! Nothing of the sort, I assure you!" said Lebedeff, hastily. "Oh dear no, not for the world! Totski's the only man with any chance there. Oh, no! He takes her to his box at the opera at the French theatre of an evening, and the officers and people all look at her and say, 'By Jove, there's the famous Nastasia Philipovna!' but no one ever gets any further than that, for there is nothing more to say."

Thanks Gladys and lugdunum, I think we will be here a while further discussing this complex book; in my opinion it needs a few months for a really good discussion and analysis. I am on page 293 (in my translation - Constance Garnett), and I am thinking that maybe, I need a set of study notes (Cliff notes, E-notes, etc) to understand fully what is now going on. I do find this text a bit confusing at times. How 'bout you, two? Do you 'get' or understand every part of the plot and intrigues?

I keep thinking this book definitely needs a second reading, but it is weighty reading, and I don't know if I will find the time, anytime soon, to re-read it. Thanks, Gladys, for pointing out when we first meet up with Lebedeff (his name is altered in my translation -Lebedyev). I kept thinking I should go back and read that train journey part to clear up my veiws on Rogozhin.

I do love this book so far, but I can't say it is always an easy book to read and understand, or am I just a little daft? This is the first book of D's I have read. I do however think that most times it flows nicely and is not hard to read - just hard to comprehend all that is going on and much goes on with multiple characters. I think that Dostoyevsky implies or suggests certain things and gives us only hints, and then later clears it up with more explanation, am I right? I refer to the confusing scene on the veranda and the one that followed when the carriage drove by? As I was reading I was following the intrigue in the room fine and then suddenly I got lost and could not make complete or clear sense out of just what was going on. Was part of that story fabricated, the one that Ganya told? This is where they lost me. I hope someone knows and fills me in on it. I got the gist of the scene, but still that whole scene seems sort of 'surreal' to me now.

Well, I know that someday I must come back to this book again and re-read it when I have the time. I always think second readings reveal more, don't you?

I'm with you on every point Janine and thanks Gladys for providing such complete and precise answers. O you have a really good knowledge of the novel to know exactly where to fiind the perfect quote each time?

I have the same feeling about the book. On one hand I find really easy to read and a real page turner. But on the other hand, I feel that by reading it to quickly and perhaps too superficially I am missing many important ideas and the real psychological depth of each character. As I read along, I get the feeling that due to the confusion caused by the complicated names and nicknames, I am not grasping all the details...

It would definitely be very interesting to re-read this book at least once and with Cliff notes.

I really like the passages you mentioned Janine about the execution. And like you I've been thinking a lot about it.

Alexei, how are you getting along? Have you finished the book yet?

lugdunum, thanks for taking the time to read my entry. I did write a bit and know that can be tiring and especially when we divide our time here between various threads.
Yes, those parts having to do with that minute or second really interesting me the most and also the way in which Myshkin does not think as the others do but with great depth and meaning.

I just was looking online for some type of study notes and only so far came up with this article and thought it was quite interesting. I served to answer some of my own questions as to how the author had first hand knowledge about epilepsy and other conditions perhaps involving the mind. I think you all will find it somewhat insightful.

http://www.pinkmonkey.com/booknotes/.../pmIdiot11.asp

I will keep looking online for more notes. Spark Notes one has to pay for so looking for any free commentary I can find.

***

Edit: Yeah! I just found an online Sparks notes that is free. This will shed a lot of light on the novel and also the various characters and plot themes. It should help us all.

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/idiot/

Here is a complete character list - I intend to copy this out on my computer. It should help a lot with the names.

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/idiot/characters.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I kept thinking I should go back and read that train journey part to clear up my views on Rogozhin.

---

After Rogozhin buys earrings with the seven thousand roubles his father tasked him to fetch, he stands by shyly as a friend gives Nastasia Philipovna the earrings on his behalf. On the train, Parfen Rogozhin recounts:

"Well, what do you think? The old fellow [father] went straight off to Nastasia Philipovna, touched the floor with his forehead, and began blubbering and beseeching her on his knees to give him back the diamonds. So after awhile she brought the box and flew out at him. 'There,' she says, 'take your earrings, you wretched old miser; although they are ten times dearer than their value to me now that I know what it must have cost Parfen to get them! Give Parfen my compliments,' she says, 'and thank him very much!' Well, I meanwhile had borrowed twenty-five roubles from a friend, and off I went to Pskoff to my aunt's. The old woman there lectured me so that I left the house and went on a drinking tour round the public-houses of the place. I was in a high fever when I got to Pskoff, and by nightfall I was lying delirious in the streets somewhere or other!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I think that Dostoyevsky implies or suggests certain things and gives us only hints, and then later clears it up with more explanation, am I right?

---

Like an oil painter, he adds paint to canvass giving rise to fragments which, ultimately, coalesce. A week ago I finished 'The Insulted and Injured', and continue to muse in the firm hope of coalescence. After reading 'The Idiot', I pondered for weeks. All Dostoyevsky's like that...and I love it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I refer to the confusing scene on the veranda and the one that followed when the carriage drove by?

---

I am uncertain which scene these are. Evgenie Pavlovitch's role in the story intrigues me: 'Evgenie Pavlovitch stood on the steps like one struck by lightning' when Nastasia spoke to him from the carriage 'drawn by a pair of beautiful white horses'. Prince S. exclaims, "A man of property like Evgenie to give IOU's to a money-lender, and to be worried about them! It is ridiculous. Besides, he cannot possibly be on such intimate terms with Nastasia Philipovna as she gave us to understand; that's the principal part of the mystery!".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Hi Everybody!

The other was when the prince would speak of that 'second', when all clarity seemed to come to him and his sense of the world was heightened...the 'second' before he would lapse into an epileptic fit. Also, I was wondering if this is an accurate description of what people do experience who have these seizures? How did the author come up with his description? Did he have first hand knowledge of such things or was it entirely fictional?

I believe these concepts of the 'second' both relate to each other - both anticipate a kind of deah - one actual death and one could result in death or oblivion of some sort, perhaps worse than death. They certainly are interesting to consider in relation to each other. They both also bring up the whole concept of 'time'...one that continually fascintes me...how we perceive time at different moments of our lives.

---

Hi, Jainine :wave: You've done an amazing amount of work. I've been interested in those issues as well. I am afraid I have more thoughts on the second one though.

I think the execution issue has its natural place in the novel especially after we've all agreed on Myshkin's figure as some kind of Christ figure. I think these thoughts of the Prince are somehow related to what is going to happen with him latter on. I am not sure though, it's just some kind of intuition :lol:

I think these descriptions of the epilepsy are very important as some additional idealization of the Prince, I believe that by his illness and his visions he is separated from the other characters and he is placed on some different, higher level. It seems to me that this is what makes him the potential Christ figure. There is something more though, in the ancient Rome epilepsy was called "Morbus Comitialis" (This means "Sacred Disease" and I am pretty sure that variations of this term are used for it in most of the ancient languages) and was considered as something very special, mark of distinction. It was considered both a gift and a curse, because it was associated with different types of religious experiences (from gift for prophecy and sign of a potential shaman to a demonic possession). In addition to this there were a lot of very important figures, who suffered from it: Caesar, Caligula etc. Even Alexander the Great suffered from a similar condition. That's why this unearthly experiences Myshkin has during his seizures seems kind of normal for the malady. In addition to this, I think Dostoevsky himself suffered from epilepsy, so I suppose the descriptions should be pretty authentic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lugdunum

Alexei, how are you getting along? Have you finished the book yet?

---

Hey, Lugdunum :wave:

I am afraid I am behind on this one as well. Starting another book got me a bit distracted, but I've managed to finish the third part of the book and I am getting closer to the end ;) I think I'll be able to finish it till the end of the week, at least I hope so :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexei

Hi, Jainine :wave: You've done an amazing amount of work. I've been interested in those issues as well. I am afraid I have more thoughts on the second one though.

---

Oh, glad it was helpful to you; thanks. I thought I had better start posting some comments on the actual story up to the parts I had read or I would forget them. Beware though, last night I printed out the character list and I was annoyed because one of the descriptions gave away a major aspect of the plot. I wish I had not known it and this way the book would be more thrilling. So there are so spoilers in those Spark Notes - BEWARE!

Quote:

---

I think the execution issue has its natural place in the novel especially after we've all agreed on Myshkin's figure as some kind of Christ figure. I think these thoughts of the Prince are somehow related to what is going to happen with him latter on. I am not sure though, it's just some kind of intuition :lol:

---

Alexei, that is excellent. I like the way you expressed this idea. I would certainly agree. I also get a felling (intuition) or pick up on clues that lead me to a forbodding feeling, as to what will happen at the end.

Quote:

---

I think these descriptions of the epilepsy are very important as some additional idealization of the Prince, I believe that by his illness and his visions he is separated from the other characters and he is placed on some different, higher level. It seems to me that this is what makes him the potential Christ figure. There is something more though, in the ancient Rome epilepsy was called "Morbus Comitialis" (This means "Sacred Disease" and I am pretty sure that variations of this term are used for it in most of the ancient languages) and was considered as something very special, mark of distinction. It was considered both a gift and a curse, because it was associated with different types of religious experiences (from gift for prophecy and sign of a potential shaman to a demonic possession). In addition to this there were a lot of very important figures, who suffered from it: Caesar, Caligula etc. Even Alexander the Great suffered from a similar condition. That's why this unearthly experiences Myshkin has during his seizures seems kind of normal for the malady. In addition to this, I think Dostoevsky himself suffered from epilepsy, so I suppose the descriptions should be pretty authentic.

---

Thanks for adding these ideas to mine. This expands the whole idea on the epilespsy and it is very interesting. Did you read this link (?):

http://www.pinkmonkey.com/booknotes/.../pmIdiot11.asp

Edit: forget the link - the article is not there anymore but luckily I did copy it to my hard-drive. Here it is:

http://www.pinkmonkey.com/booknotes/...1.aspLiterary/ Historical Information

Quote:

---

Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote Idiot at a time when he was disturbed both in body and mind. He had had an attack of epilepsy and his mind was restless. The revolutionary and rebellious spirit that he had possessed in youth gave way to philosophical outlook and idealism. Suffering had ennobled him. His struggle and experience as a prisoner haunted by death mellowed his fiery temperament and urged him to create an ideal character who embodied goodness. Thus, during his stay abroad and after his marriage to Anna Gregorievna, he wrote Idiot. "He began notes for the novel on 14 September 1867 in Geneva, where he stayed until the end of May 1868; continued them in Vevey from June until the beginning of September 1868; in Milan until the middle of November; and he finished the novel in Florence, where he stayed through January 1869."
Idiot presents a few of Dostoevsky’s biographical sketches and anecdotes. Prince Myshkin has traces of Dostoevsky in him. He is a patient of epilepsy like his creator and also an idealist like him. He voices the author’s views on suffering, capital punishment and creativity. Dostoevsky deviated from the main plot of the story to reflect his ideas through the Prince and other characters in the novel.
Why Dostoevsky called his protagonist an idiot is not clear? Could it be because Myshkin had suffered from a mental illness or that he was a simpleton? The word ‘Idiot’ is derived from the Greek ‘idiotes’ which means a "private person, a common man, an ignorant uninformed person." It is possible that Dostoevsky named Myshkin an ‘idiot’ because he was essentially a private person, ignorant of the ways of the world and the representative of the common man.

---

Since this person's article talks about how Dostoyevsky himself was an epileptic, I guess he did indeed have first hand knowledge to support that feeling Myshkin has, when he is about to go into one of his fits or seizures; it is almost like a religious experience or an awakening.

Quote:

---

I am afraid I am behind on this one as well. Starting another book got me a bit distracted, but I've managed to finish the third part of the book and I am getting closer to the end ;) I think I'll be able to finish it till the end of the week, at least I hope so :D

---

Alexei, I am only a little past Part 3; I hoped to read last night but then it got too late to do so and I got too tired out. I will resume tonight. I read the character analysis list instead and took a short breather from the book.

New thoughts:

Anyone else have a feeling of forboding about the interchange of the crosses at Rogozhin's house...also the emphasis put on that knife laying on the table and that finally R put away between the pages of that book?
I think both forshadow the events to come...why else would they be so prominent in this scene?

Also, I find that Rogozhin is very unstable, almost as bad as Natasysa. Actually, it seems there are a lot of unstable and wounded people in this novel. It seems that only Myshkin is anyway stable and yet he is naive. Most of the characters one time or the other seems to be unpredicable or impulsive but Myshkin seems to be the focused one and no rash, although he did offer to marry Natasysa in a very impulsive manor but still I got the impression he knew what he was doing in asking her. I think he really was as a knight and wanted merely to save her from herself. So I don't know if his action could be called rash or unstable, impulsive...he seems to think out all that he does before he does it; even though he tries to reason sometimes and cannot fully grasp the outcome or solution.

The interchange of the crosses is so moving: the prince's tin one for Roghozin’s gold. An expression of love.

In the past, epilepsy has sometimes been misconstrued as idiocy.

Is there clear evidence that the prince is naive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

The interchange of the crosses is so moving: the prince's tin one for Roghozin’s gold. An expression of love.

---

Was it? I don't know, when I read up to that part I found it forbodding of some incident to come. I guess I am suspicious naturally and thought there may be some hidden motive on Roghozin's behalf and I found the Myshkin was rather reluctant to trade. I may be thinking back to a similar plot incident in Frankenstein involving a locket.

Quote:

---

In the past, epilepsy has sometimes been misconstrued as idiocy.

---

That is most likely true. If you read the some definitions online or in Wikipedia I believe they will mention that fact.

Quote:

---

Is there clear evidence that the prince is naive?

---

I did find clear text evidence by the author, not the perception of the individual characters, that the prince has some characteristics of naivity. I will try and post those passages tonight.