Love your enemies: the unlovable Rogozhin

[Gladys]

In the ‘The Idiot’, Prince Myshkin begins and ends with Rogozhin. In between, his shadow haunts the prince.

Rogozhin is the arrogant, overbearing passenger in the same carriage as the prince on a train to Petersburg. The impulsive, repulsive Rogozhin long threatens murder. During that night following his murder of Nastasya Filippovna (who deemed herself worthy only of Rogozhin…as human sacrifice), the prince’s “tears flowed on to Rogozhin’s cheek”.

Are these tears the descent of the prince into idiocy? Rather, I think, he is showing his open-hearted love for Rogozhin in the most trying circumstances imaginable. Finally, the epileptic is committed to the Swiss asylum, where he bemoans the sad fate of Rogozhin among others. All now see the prince’s great love as madness: no one believes in him. Are we also offended?

Maybe Dostoevsky is alluding here to scripture, “As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed” (Romans 9:33).

[Ingi]

I read the book a week ago and I can't stop thinking about Rogozhin and if I interpreted him right. So...if I figured out something wrong, please correct me.

Rogozhin is my favorite character. Although in the book he is considered as the worst chatacter, I don't understand completely why. I don't even understand if he loved Nastasya truly, or was just obsessed with her.

He was evil because he bought Nastasya, beat, killed her, but he also loved her. All bad things he did were cause of love (or obsession?). And if someone can love so much, how can he be evil? I would say that did it because he was mad of love, not because he was evil. If he was so bad, if he wanted Nastasya only because of her beauty, he surely wouldn't be so considerate towards her. He always listened, pleased her and he was around all the time for support.

For me one of the most touching moments in the book was when she ran away from wedding with Myshkin, and Rogozhin and Nastasya were in Petersburg, in widow's house. She was bored there, she even cried because of it, and next day Rogozhin brought cards, so they can play.

I don't know what would he do if she turned him down at the beggining of the novel. Would that awake his rage and desire to kill her, or did these feelings come later?
I think she is insensitive and much more evil than Rogozhin despite of her unfortunate life. At least he never exploited her as she did him. At the very beggining she alredy knew that she is lost and cannot be saved. Instead of accepting and ruining only herself she pulled after her Rogozhin, Myshkin and Aglaya.

For me Rogozhihin was much bigger victim than Nastasya.

What do you think?

[Gladys]

I share your fascination with Rogozhin. He is obsessed with Nastasya. If he may be said to love Nastasya, his love is astronomically different from Prince Myshkin self-sacrificing love for her. For Rogozhin, 'love' probably means obsession or infatuation. He is 'in love', whereas the prince loves much.

Rogozhin is made mad by his love. Certainly, he acts at times in a considerate, pleasing and supportive way both to Nastasya and the prince. But he murders Nastasya and, earlier, had attempted to kill the prince. As to whether he is evil, I am guided the by the judgement of Prince Myshkin, 'his tears flowed on to Rogozhin's cheek'.

When she, runs 'away from wedding with Myshkin' to the widow's house, Nastasya is understandably bored and depressed. In self-deprecation she, 'a worthless woman', consciously flees her last chance of salvation. Had Nastasya turned Rogozhin down earlier, he would have left her alone. But she flies into his flame like a moth because such a 'worthless woman' is only good enough for the likes of him. That is why the prince intervenes: to save them both from themselves.

I think she [Natasya] is insensitive and much more evil than Rogozhin despite of her unfortunate life. At least he never exploited her as she did him. At the very beginning she already knew that she is lost and cannot be saved. Instead of accepting and ruining only herself she pulled after her Rogozhin, Myshkin and Aglaya.

I am inclined to agree with the prince: you are too hard on the victimised Nastasya, a damaged creature. While she ruined Rogozhin, Aglaya must also share some of the blame. As for Rogozhin, the prince lives in constant fear of his murderous friend – fear for Rogozhin, Nastasya and himself.

Where I strongly disagree with you, Ingi, is that Nastasya or Rogozhin ruined Prince Myshkin. Oh no! That the prince is ruined at all is debatable. If so, he is ruined by the intolerance of his Russian friends, Aglaya included, who consign the mourner to the Swiss asylum of bloodless Dr Schneider.

[mouseofcards89]

Rogozhin is a man of extremes, one whose passions may be considered commensurate to those of Nastasya. He is Myshkin's foil in that he is driven solely by an urge to reduce that which he perceives to be a low woman to a state of hampering domesticity. He loves her in his own masochistic way, as a means through which to unconsciously discredit his own ideals. Rogozhin may be considered sensible in that he understands precisely who he is and was he stands for, and, unlike Myshkin, who wishes to redeem Nastasya Filippovna through a kind of platonic Christian love, he wishes to defile both himself and her. He takes a kind of malevolent delight in knowing that there is something lower than himself that he aspires to, in seeking her out and believing on some level that she is expendable while at the same time convincing himself that he loves her, and is a classic example of the man for whom the chase is far worthier than the goal.

[Gladys]

Rogozhin is ... a classic example of the man for whom the chase is far worthier than the goal.

You well expressed complexities in the character of Rogozhin.

It seems to me that painters as a rule represent the Saviour, both on the cross and taken down from it, with great beauty still upon His face. This marvellous beauty they strive to preserve even in His moments of deepest agony and passion. But there was no such beauty in Rogojin's picture. This was the presentment of a poor mangled body which had evidently suffered unbearable anguish even before its crucifixion, full of wounds and bruises, marks of the violence of soldiers and people, and of the bitterness of the moment when He had fallen with the cross--all this combined with the anguish of the actual crucifixion.

[Big Dante]

He seemed to be obsessed with Natasya in the same sense that Myshkin was. This gives the two the mutual feeling which bonds them throughout the novel while their personality types are still opposite with Myshkin portraying the good of human nature and Rogozhin the bad.

[Gladys]

He seemed to be obsessed with Natasya in the same sense that Myshkin was.

Myshkin is overwhelmed with pity for shame-ridden Natasya: proud Rogozhin with lust.

[Big Dante]

Myshkin is overwhelmed with pity for shame-ridden Natasya: proud Rogozhin with lust.

True but in the sense that both want her but do not conventionally love her.

[Gladys]

True but in the sense that both want her but do not conventionally love her.

It's not that Prince Myshkin wants Nastasya Filippovna: he feels, from the beginning, impelled by compassion to rescue her from herself, from others, however improbable that may be. And to rescue Rogozhin from her!

In the end, of course, Myshkin fails on both counts. But he would change nothing. His mental health permitting, he would do the same again given a similar opportunity - and without hesitation. Just as he had attempted to save Aglaya (from a Polish fiasco).

[Brielle92]

I loved Rogozhin. Everyone goes on about Nastasya but I think Rogozhin was the victim. Nastasya could have easily avoided her sitch with Rogozhin, but I guess someone will just argue that she is damaged. She took pleasure in seeing him completely obsessed and pulled at his heartstrings for fun. I believe she knew what kind of man he is from the start with the diamond earrings: impulsive, irrational, passionate. Thus, she did this to herself. Ps, she obviously didn't want to be saved. Ok, maybe at the beggining with Totsky but after then she was just vindictive and cruel and she liked it.

I don't know, I guess I just can't forgive her for ruining the Prince's happiness. I'm convinced he truly loved Aglaya (as in a man loves a woman, not the typical Myshkin love).

[Gladys]

Nastasya could have easily avoided her sitch with Roghozin, but I guess someone will just argue that she is damaged.

Having said this, you go on to characterise the damage!

I don't know, I guess I just can't forgive her for ruining the Prince's happiness. I'm convinced he truly loved Aglaya (as in a man loves a woman, not the typical Myshkin love).

The prince loves all, and especially Roghozin. The prince knows nothing of romantic love or, at least, gives it scant priority. His happiness is bound up in saving Roghozin. In the end, he saves no one, not even himself, although Vera Lebedev, Lizabetha Prokofievna, and Evgenie Pavlovitch may feel otherwise (if you go by the last page of the novel).

[Steveedo]

I realize this post is very old, but I want to respond anyway. The prince certainly experiences romantic love, first with Nastásya Filíppovna,. When he arrives uninvited at her birthday party, he is dazzled by her beauty and says to her, "Everything is perfection in you . . ." He declares his love openly to all present and offers marriage. Only later, after painful experience, does he say that the he no longer loves her romantically but with pity.

His love for Aglaya is completely romantic and powerful. She is much closer to a conventional character than Nastasya or Roghozin, so Myskin's feelings toward her have nothing to do with self-sacrifice. He loves her. Early on, in part 2, he's afraid of his emotions regarding her and refuses even to hear her name mentioned in connection with himself. A great part of the novel is devoted to their often comical courtship. One of the great tragedies of the novel is that this innocent, romantic relationship is destroyed by Nastaya F's steady drive to destuction, which pulls Myskin (and thus Aglaya) in its wake.

For me, by story's end, the lives of Myskin, Nastasya, Rogozhin and Aglaya are all destroyed. It's a astounding tragedy, probably one of the most terrible in literature.

[Gladys]

It's my favourite novel.

I realize this post is very old, but I want to respond anyway. The prince certainly experiences romantic love, first with Nastásya Filíppovna,. When he arrives uninvited at her birthday party, he is dazzled by her beauty and says to her, "Everything is perfection in you . . ." He declares his love openly to all present and offers marriage. Only later, after painful experience, does he say that the he no longer loves her romantically but with pity.

You will find no textual justification for he no longer loves her romantically because he never did. The prince sees Nastásya as a tragic figure, in need of salvation, from the moment he meets her. And she's beautiful, of course.

His love for Aglaya is completely romantic and powerful. She is much closer to a conventional character than Nastasya or Roghozin, so Myskin's feelings toward her have nothing to do with self-sacrifice. He loves her. Early on, in part 2, he's afraid of his emotions regarding her and refuses even to hear her name mentioned in connection with himself.

Again no textual hint anywhere of romantic love on Myshkin's part. And again the prince is right: Aglaya in the end needed saving from herself as much as did Nastásya. But he couldn't save both...or ultimately either. How he tried! And yet his final tears are for Rogozhin.

Besides, the recent events that had befallen her family had
given Adelaida much to think about, especially the sad experiences of her younger sister. Within six months,
everything that the family had dreaded from the marriage with the Polish count had come to pass. He turned
out to be neither count nor exile--at least, in the political sense of the word--but had had to leave his native
land owing to some rather dubious affair of the past. It was his noble patriotism, of which he made a great
display, that had rendered him so interesting in Aglaya's eyes. She 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. The
supposed fortune of the count had dwindled to a mere nothing, although he had given almost irrefutable
evidence of its existence to Lizabetha Prokofievna and Prince S.

Besides this, before they had been married half a year, the count and his friend the priest managed to bring
about a quarrel between Aglaya and her family, so that it was now several months since they had seen her.

[Steveedo]

It's my favourite novel.



You will find no textual justification for he no longer loves her romantically because he never did. The prince sees Nastásya as a tragic figure, in need of salvation, from the moment he meets her. And she's beautiful, of course.



Again no textual hint anywhere of romantic love on Myshkin's part. And again the prince is right: Aglaya in the end needed saving from herself as much as did Nastásya. But he couldn't save both...or ultimately either. How he tried! And yet his final tears are for Rogozhin.

No "textual justification" or "hint"? I'm sorry, I don't know how you can read the novel and make such statements.

Of course Myskin's feeling for Nastasya Filippovna is one of overwhelming compassion from the begining. He will do anything to save her from herself. But romantic love and compassion are not exclusive of each other. Dostoevsky showed this earlier in C&P, in the relationship between Sonya (another saint or holy fool) and Raskolnikov. I think it's here too, early in the relationship between Myshkin and N.F. When the Prince and Aglaya meet at the bench, the following is said:

Myshkin: "Oh, I loved her; Oh, I loved her very much, but afterwards . . . she guessed it all."
Aglaya: "What did she guess?"
Myshkin: "That I only pitied her, but that I . . . don't love her any more."

Thus Myshkin distinquishes his "love" from his pity.

Regarding the romance between Myshkin and Aglaya, there are numerous descriptions. Myshkin kisses the note from Aglaya (the one arranging a rendezvous at he green bench). Immediately after, we read:

If anyone had told him at that moment that he had fallen in love, that he was passionately in love, he would have rejected the idea with surprise and perhaps with indignation . . .

Myshkin doesn't know his mind here. Later, when Aglaya prompts his proposal (in front of her family), he declares:

"I love you. Aglaya Ivanovna. I love you very much, I love no one but you and . . . don't jest, I implore you . . . I love you very much."

Alone with General Epanchin:

"I love Aglaya Ivanovna; she knows that . . . and I think she had known it for a long time."
"Strange, strange! . . . And are you very fond of her?"
"Very."

I can go on and on.

[Gladys]

But romantic love and compassion are not exclusive of each other. Dostoevsky showed this earlier in C&P, in the relationship between Sonya (another saint or holy fool) and Raskolnikov. I think it's here too, early in the relationship between Myshkin and N.F. When the Prince and Aglaya meet at the bench, the following is said:

Myshkin: "Oh, I loved her; Oh, I loved her very much, but afterwards . . . she guessed it all."
Aglaya: "What did she guess?"
Myshkin: "That I only pitied her, but that I . . . don't love her any more."

I exaggerated a little. Prince Myshkin does indeed have romantic love for Nastásya and, after she chooses Roghozin, for Aglaya. But as a motivating force in his life, romantic love is as nothing alongside his compassion.

This unconditional and selfless "love", his drive to save these women, first Nastásya, later Aglaya and finally Nastásya borders on the infinite. At the end, Nastásya is the most needy and so Aglaya must take second place. Meanwhile, his "love" for Roghozin is no less! His decision making is invariably driven by "divine" love.

Sonya in C & P, is much the same. She is impelled by a selfless love of her fellow man, as amply illustrated in her generous relationship with all the prisoners at the end. For both Sonya and the prince, romantic love is incidental, although many look at them and judge otherwise. Dostoevesky is content to allow the careless reader the same illusion. Love of one's neighbour - the person in most need - is everything.

The quotations you provide on Aglaya are particularly interesting, The full quote, which rather supports my view is:

If anyone had come up at this moment and told him that he was in love, passionately in love, he would have rejected the idea with astonishment, and, perhaps, with irritation. And if anyone had added that Aglaya's note was a love-letter, and that it contained an appointment to a lover's rendezvous, he would have blushed with shame for the speaker, and, probably, have challenged him to a duel.

All this would have been perfectly sincere on his part. He had never for a moment entertained the idea of the possibility of this girl loving him, or even of such a thing as himself falling in love with her. The possibility of being loved himself, "a man like me," as he put it, he ranked among ridiculous suppositions. It appeared to him that it was simply a joke on Aglaya's part, if there really were anything in it at all; but that seemed to him quite natural. His preoccupation was caused by something different.

As to the few words which the general had let slip about Aglaya laughing at everybody, and at himself most of all--he entirely believed them. He did not feel the slightest sensation of offence; on the contrary, he was quite certain that it was as it should be.

And the alone with General Epanchin quotation eventually continues, speaking of the prince:

But this evening he did nearly all the talking himself, and told stories by the dozen, while he answered all questions put to him clearly, gladly, and with any amount of detail.

There was nothing, however, of love-making in his talk. His ideas were all of the most serious kind; some were even mystical and profound.

He aired his own views on various matters, some of his most private opinions and observations, many of which would have seemed rather funny, so his hearers agreed afterwards, had they not been so well expressed.