Divine purity, Beauty and Idealism in Prince Myshkin’s World in

Dostoyevsky’s novel The Idiot

Introduction

‘’Assessing Dostoyevski has always been, and still is today, a tremendous risk, responsibility,

and ordeal. It is the duty of individuals, if not on the level of genius like Dostoevsky—of

whom there were only a few in all of human history—then at least those who are

exceptionally gifted and significant, such as Berdjaev, Shestov, Mereshkovsky, Zweig, and

Camus. Therefore, one might argue that it is not the role of a psychiatrist to embark on the

adventure of evaluating the worth and passing judgments on a genius. Nevertheless, some

psychiatrists dared to do so, and I will focus on two of them here. These individuals, with

their remarkably keen powers of observation and profound insight into the darkest, most

mysterious, and remote realms of human subconscious and unconscious life, ascended far

above their contemporaries and the spirit of their time. ‘’ (Vladeta Jerotic, "O

Dostojevskom")

Vladeta Jerotic, a well-known Serbian theologian and psychotherapist, evaluates

Dostoyevsky in his book "About Dostoyevsky" and claims that it would be difficult to find
another mind like this in the world. Famous theologians and psychiatrists have always put
forth considerable effort to analyze his works, but most agree that Dostoyevsky's mind
transcends the usual approach, touching upon the deepest and most mysterious parts of the
human spirit and soul. Jerotic only represented a small group of people who were excited to
dig into Dostoyevsky’s analysis.

Many scholars, theologians, and literary critics have been drawn to the complexities

of Dostoyevsky’s works, exploring the depth of his insights about life. Many people

considered Dostoyevski a prophet. Some argued that he had been not just an author of the
divine message to people, but even a real prophet. He was not just a good psychiatrist but

also a pneumatologist who sought the spiritual origin as well as the deep root of human

nature. This is relevant to the current twentieth-century Russia; and also extends to an

inquest regarding problems in the Soviet Union. Nowadays when reading Dostoevsky, one is

immediately impressed by how perceptive he was of problems that remain relevant today:

Terrorism, Islamic/Christian conflict, or rather Russia’s path as such. Few writers would be

able to provoke such spiritual emotion. Religious sense had become very confusing to him

due to his complicated life experience of that period. For instance, the method Dostoyevsky

had in relating spiritual visioning originated from skepticism to a hostile war against Christian

notions. His other central themes are focused on faith, ethics, and divinity.

Introduction to the novel and Prince Myshkin

One of the most notable Dostoyevsky’s works that should be mentioned when speaking

about complex human nature are:

"Crime and Punishment", "The Brothers Karamazov, and "The Gambler". These three

works demonstrate how he was able to develop complicated characters and dig deep into

exploring the darkest parts of human nature. Like Jerotic, another but more wordily - famous

clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson had his thoughts on Dostoevsky and how he brought

impact onto his career. To Jordan, Dostoevsky's work shows that to suffer is to be human and

that we should embrace it with open arms, for we will be redeemed in the afterlife. In all

2
these three novels Jordan lies somewhere in between materialist and existentialist: to suffer

is to be human, but we should reject/correct any internal struggles we might have. He makes

a fair argument about Dostoyevsky that the combat against rationalism stems from the

search for a higher truth or meaning. Aside from these three and many other works of

Dostoyevsky, one novel that sets out and is known for a more optimistic tone in contrast to

his other works is the novel "The Idiot".

The plot of The Idiot revolves around the idea that Dostoyevsky thought was so valuable:

that of a flawless, Christ-like figure attempting to make its way through the convoluted world

of nineteenth-century Russia. (Hesse, 1919)

Famous German poet Herman Hesse, who was interested in spiritualism and existentialism,

also offered his opinions. The best explanation of the protagonist is provided by the very first

sentence of his book "Thoughts on The Idiot by Dostoevsky," which he quotes:

" Dostoyevsky’s "Idiot", Prince Leo Myshkin, is often compared to Jesus. This is easy enough

to do. You can compare to Jesus anyone who has been touched by one of the magical truths,

who no longer separates thinking from living and thereby isolates himself amid his

surroundings and becomes the opponent of all. Beyond that, the comparison between

Myshkin and Jesus seems to me not exactly apt. Only one characteristic in Myshkin, an

important one to be sure, strikes me as Jesus-like - his timid chastity. The concealed fear of

sex and procreation is a characteristic that could not be wanting in the "historical" Jesus, the

Jesus of the Gospels, a trait that is clearly part of his world and is not neglected in even so

superficial a portrait of Jesus as Renan's. " (Herman Hesse,1919)

3
Comparing any character with Christ is not easy. While Mishkin confirms some of the
religious stereotypes, he also challenges them.

I would like to focus on examining the dynamics between Myhsink’s preached beliefs, which

translated to chastity and devotion towards Christ, and the complicated society that

surrounded him. The defect is also present in Myshkin’s personality and his notions of

beauty (Dostoevsky & Hoffmann). In the book, it is Christ who becomes the basis for all the

values as he is the embodiment of divinity, love, and ethical perfection. This is how the novel

responds to this fundamental question of whether these moral values are sustainable in a

hard world through Mishkin’s personality which represents some Christian ideals. I will try to

highlight the effects that are implied by Myshkin’s idealism as related to that of Christ- the

top of the Christian beliefs.

The unveiling of innocence and interaction with Rogozhin

Prince Mishkyn comes from a noble Russian family and he is portrayed as a central figure in

the novel. After seeking treatment in Switzerland, he returned to Russia, where he was

depicted as a pitiable character in the first chapter. We are right away introduced to his

compassionate and naive nature. During that period, Russia faced dilemmas as traditional

values clashed with the forces of modernization. Mishkin’s strong moral principles

contrasted with the complexities and relativism that were widespread in society.

The moment upon his return to Russia his mannerism is distinct from others giving us our

first impression that he is very naïve. His demeanor is honest and innocent, and he has an
4
ethereally pure aura. His path intersects with that of two gentlemen – Rogozhin and Lebedev

– who, while making fun of his innocence, are laughing with him. He soon becomes a friend

of Rogozhin who realizes the true essence of Myskin. While Myshkin was residing in

Moscow, they became friends and are referring to each other now as brothers. After that,

Rogozin communicates with the Prince and informs him that Nastassya, the love interest of

Rogozhin, deserted him during their wedding ceremony. So Rogozhin tells Myshkin that he's

only gone mad because Nastassya loves the Prince instead of him. Then Rogozhin and

Myshkin get to talking about God, and Rogozhin opens up about how his heart belongs to

Nastassya. This gets Rogozhin thinking about killing Myshkin.

It reminds me of the story of Cain and Abel from Genesis chapter IV. Cain got jealous of Abel

and that jealousy eventually led to conflict and Cain wanting to harm his brother. Similarly,

Rogozhin's mixed feelings of love for Nastassya and anger at Myshkin start to boil over and

he wants to hurt the Prince.

The way Rogozhin acts shows how different he is from Myshkin. Rogozhin comes across as

dark and mysterious. But Myshkin doesn't see him that way at all. When Myshkin runs into

Rogozhin, he just shows genuine concern about him. Myshkin doesn't seem afraid of

Rogozhin's dark side like other people might be. Dostoevsky calls his readers to see this

dichotomy of “innocence” with Myshkin appearing as a torment of bright lights in the

darkness of shadows. How Myshkin deals with Rogozhin illustrates a purity through which

the innocent can take away various things that make individuals different. Later in the novel,

Rogozhin’s dark character culminates when he kills Nastassya. Myshkin's decision to return

to the hotel where Rogozhin had earlier tried to hurt him showed some keen eye and

5
forethought. He anticipates Rogozhin’s actions and positions himself in a position that

acknowledges potential danger but also reflects a willingness to face the situation. So

Myshkin stayed with Rogozhin and Nastasya's lifeless body all night. Even though things

were bad, he didn't leave. Staying showed what kind of person he is - someone who stands

by their principles.

Another example of his innocence is well demonstrated when Myshkin visits Pavlovsk Park.

We see his innocence shining through in how he acts. He gets playful with others in a

completely spontaneous and unrestricted way.

There's a scene where he breaks out in a carefree dance. He's feeling some deep, pure

happiness in that moment. The way he dances symbolizes how he doesn't follow all the

normal social rules and conventions. It shows people his true self - that he acts from a place

of genuine feeling rather than what others expect. Even though he would be ridiculed and

mocked it did not stop him. Children are usually honest and genuine, and Myshkin is a lot

like that too. The way he talks to people is straightforward, without trying to hide his

intentions or trick them.

Complexities of Myshkins relationship with others – Christ-like Nature in

contrast to others

I already mentioned Myshkins love interest Nastassya Filipovna who ended tragically, but

before her death, the Prince was caught up in love triangulation between her and Aglaya

Yepanchin. So the Prince tells Aglaya that he loves her, but she calls him an idiot and says

6
there's no way she could ever marry someone like him. Even though everyone knows she's

just lying. Aglaya arranged a meeting with Natassya and invited the Prince. The two women

hated each other and argued. Natassya claimed she only had to say the word and the Prince

would marry her. They looked at the Prince to see if it was true. His hesitant reply sent

Aglaya running from the house. He was about to run after her when Natassya fainted in his

arms. After the event, the Prince stayed with Natassya and they arranged to get married.

And then the trading death of Natassya followed in the hands of Rogoshin. Myshkin's

inability to lie or manipulate others really makes that love triangle situation he's in even

more complicated. While the other characters are constantly scheming and trying to fool

each other, Myshkin is just straightforward and honest.

This is a real contrast to how Rogozhin and Nastasya Filippovna act. In the novel, they are

always plotting their next move and trying to use people to get what they want. Myshkin

doesn't operate that way at all. He treats everyone with sincerity and respect.

I think this difference in character adds an interesting layer to the whole story. It puts

Myshkin in a real moral dilemma. On one hand, he wants to stay true to his principles of

being upfront and truthful. But in a world where others are so sneaky, that makes things

difficult for him. This love triangle is already problematic enough as it is. But Myshkin's

honest nature makes it even more complex. It raises big questions about how to navigate

relationships when people aren't always straightforward with each other.

7
A comparison to the gospel accounts shows that Jesus regularly associated with those seen

as sinners or morally questionable. One such example is found in the Gospel of Luke's

account of Zacchaeus, a tax collector known for corruption. As recounted in Luke 19, most

viewed Zacchaeus negatively. However, Jesus dined with him, implying acceptance and

respect. After their interaction, Zacchaeus underwent a change, struck by guilt and

repenting of past actions.