The Idiot (1) Emile The Idiot, "I said, is right through the romance of failure and impotence impotence in Rogozhin's selfish desire for possession to take the person he covets must deny its profound dignity, but above all helplessness of the goodness of the prince who is in his own way, a way of reaching the truth and be with a sweetness which are sometimes even more unbearable than the physical or verbal aggression. Because she defies and violates the proprieties of the social game - and God knows how the Prince Myshkin first appears to be all as a social misfit, a simpleton, an idiot specifically, who can not even move the chess pieces [ p. 305] and can not avoid, in one memorable scene, breaking a valuable vase from China [liv. 4, VII] - but mostly because goodness opens to a discerning minds and hearts that few are willing to accept - "And where is it that I made earlier, that you were a idiot! You notice what others will never notice, "exclaims Ganya [liv. 1, X, p. 205] - resulting in the most ironic, furious rejection, frustration and rebellion, even hatred - "the prince, he had time even to hate him, because the latter [Ganya] considered with a compassionate way too big "[liv. 4, 1, p. 234] - as if had been reached so intolerable, which everyone does his "on itself" and that were inexplicably received the secrets of the heart and conscience are called to remain hidden - otherwise, what a life in society would possible? It is the innocence of his attitude, characterized by simplicity and kindness, a way of being devoid of any ulterior motives - all bathed in this first book of the Evangelical Climate agape - which stunned interlocutors Prince with a mixture of astonishment and disbelief - would not he playing a double game? Or to what country is falling there this "strange man if ever there was" [liv., V, p. 318]? Their amazement, initially scornful, facing the simplicity of Myshkin show the reactions of lackeys whom he addresses with an perfect frankness and openness of heart in the lobby of the general, as if addressing an equal and that distinctions of class and what they require of all - remain in place and do the right thing - it was losing totally. Such a conversation between a member of the aristocracy and a servant is not it perfectly incongruous
? "Is the prince was like that, a kind of freeloader, and he came asking for alms, or the prince was simply cheesy and had no self-esteem" [liv. 1, 2, p. 42]. All question with a puzzled concern, which runs through the book and I.
Love stillborn compassion
There is nobody in
The Idiot (poor Mary aside, but that was before, Switzerland) which is comforted, soothed, and even less cured of his ills and misfortunes by the goodness of the prince. Quite the contrary: his kindness acts as an accelerator of the disaster - in the sense that we speak of a particle accelerator - and Myshkin is finally alone with his "idiocy". He comes, he will return between two absences, we said.
goodness or compassion, is triggered by the spectacle of pain, this pain and beauty which are inextricably entwined in the face of the whole person and Nastassia; "In the face ... there is much suffering, "murmured the prince as unintentionally" [liv. I, VII, p. 144]. It is worth emphasizing the extraordinary importance that the intelligence is in Myshkin faces, and he himself admits at the end of his first meeting with the three daughters of General Yepanchins:
- I also know their faces, "said the prince, pressing her underlined sentence in a way.
- How? inquired a voice Adelaide surprised.
- What do you know our faces? made the other two, curious turn.
But the prince was silent and he looked serious, and all that awaited their response.
- I'll tell you later, "he said in a voice soft and serious. [liv. 1, V, p. 120]
Because on the face of Nastassia combine the mystery of beauty and evidence of an infinite pain, that he is doing to her, with all the enthusiasm of his pure love unconditionally . Myshkin, indisputably, is desperate to save Nastassia Rogozhin and tear in disgust and shame of herself which predetermine the loss of self and possibly death. For, indeed, it is and she considers herself, with infinite contempt since she was abused as a teenager by Totsky, his patron and proceed with the wicked sarcasm addressed to all (except the Prince, because nobody had spoken to him "like that" [liv. 1, 16, p. 285]:
This unfortunate woman is deeply convinced that the creature is the most deprived and most vile in the world. Oh, do not make him no shame, do not blame him: she was too tortured herself with the consciousness of his own undeserved shame. And what is she guilty, O my God? "Oh, she cried incessantly, in a daze, she does admit any wrongdoing, she is the victim of people, the victim of a libertine and a monster and yet, despite all she can say , know that it, first, she does not believe what she says, and she believes the contrary, his entire consciousness, that the guilty ... it is . [Liv. III, 8, p. 185]
At the same time, it is not
she really loves the prince, being that it is absolutely unique in its singularity, unlike the feeling of love he feels for Aglaia, and two love, one human and "selfish" another sublime and disinterested,
eros and agape
, between which it is unable to decide, much to the fury of one that is already presented as his bride.
ago in the very essence of compassion, a character of generality, whence it can be any address that appears - and in fact, the prince also reflects other (Hyppolite The consumptive at the end of adolescence, whose death is near, General Ivolgin despite its laughable bouffonerie that borrows from Dostoevsky to Dickens Micawber up Rogozhin himself) although this is different. While the tragedy of this kind lies in that it does not relate two beings in a unique relationship of love, a love that is fully human. Furthermore it lacks the appetite of desire which is not only desire for possession, but desire and from being to another, and that alone, in addition to distinguishing feature that goodness is asexual désérotisée and completely, it is only in being what is given to see, and touch, which affects and hurts, and imperatively calls to the beneficent action, but it is not intended to be as it is. Also compassion and Beyond not in the Register of love or even friendship - if one sticks to the famous "Because it's him, because I am" of Montaigne and La Boetie - it belongs to a benevolent intention of aid and assistance. But that, of course, anything else than love it is. This lack of love at the heart of compassion, the prince himself confessed to Aglaia, without, in these terms that contradict each other, there is real contradiction:
- [...] Oh, I loved her, oh, I loved him very much ... but after, she guessed.
- She guessed what?
- That I only pity her, and that ... I did not love her. [liv. 3, VII, p. 186]
It is therefore understandable that under the overriding requirement of human love, compassion is simply unacceptable and can only be postponed, and even furiously, rage, scorn and anger. And this will indeed be the case. With a last remnant of pride and self-respect - indeed, he is left with little to Nastassia of what makes his own eyes the dignity of a human being - at the last moment, while the guests already ahead on the forecourt of the church and the prince at the altar, she fled her wedding dress to finally throw in Rogozhin's knife which we foresaw long ago - the author had given many indications - that inexorably awaits him, and effectively reach the same night.
But why wonder at this evidence, that pity is not love? If we are as thrilled by the power of this story, this is it only the art of a novelist of genius? When we ask things flat, so cold and analytical, are we not, ultimately, when faced with simple psychological platitudes? What we are witnessing, if not a great mess that could have been avoided? Myshkin Aglaia should have married, as is the question as to the time of narration, and many other opportunities available to éraient creator, his notebooks, has demonstrated great reluctance. He himself did not know in advance where his story was driving or what purpose it was to give his novel. Neurotic hysteria, psychological platitudes, pathological taste for nothingness and destruction -
The Idiot is the worst of all the novels of Dostoevsky - is this the last word of history that draws the reader once sober? If things go well, and not otherwise, what is the implacable necessity to which Dostoevsky himself has had to undergo, he intended it or not? For it is obvious that the march of events and story whose characters are the actors do not fall under a free choice or indifference on the part of the writer, which is, however, still in his hands "tricks "history. Or to put it another way: do we only deal with a Russian novel
, with all expected that this obscure concept vehicle of Russian soul, made it heard, a taste for the irrationality passions and the breathtaking attraction of the void? That it is not so, is it really useful to make the demonstration? So where does that with a head cold, our thinking is still held in suspense by strange riddles? We can not make any other answer hypothetical, such as roads to follow. Sticking to resist compromise with the characters that go up after themselves and their passions guidelines is not enough. But what he then touched him, Dostoevsky, with unparalleled strength and truth? This can be: the implications of irrevocable commitment, unselfishness sacrificial Price to pay and the inevitable failure of the ideal embodied goodness Prince Myshkin, the idiot, man "perfectly beautiful". "The Idiot
wrote Joseph Franck, is an attempt to portray the Christian ideal that meets the" rational egoism "that Dostoevsky was attacking, but it was ultimately impossible for him to stop that Prince Myshkin lead to anything but disaster. Such failure is obviously inherent in worldly paradigne of self-sacrifice of Christ, but at this time, Dostoevsky had come to believe that "love man as himself, according to the commandment of Christ, is impossible. The law of personality imprisons us. The ego intervenes. Only in the afterlife that "the law of personality" can be exceeded. "
But there's more to dig. Two decisive statements can be made without danger of mistake too. The first, and who won with a certainty indisputable fact that the characteristic of Myshkin in its relationship to other men is that it is devoid of any sort of self-love, that is, say in this manner to exist only in the eye and the gaze of others, wanting to be admired, valued and considered, this division from oneself that is, for Rousseau, the source of all evil and inevitably created by the development of social relationships. In this regard, Myshkin is a perfect
Emile , social man natural that Rousseau had undertaken training patiently by means of education, but crowned the Christian virtues of
agape, love that not seek what is his and which bears all things, in the words of St. Paul unforgettable. Everything in his manner, though polite, civil, courteous and excludes hypocrisy, selfish calculation of interest rightly understood - viewed in this light, it can be seen as the figure par excellence of the anti homo economicus, and it ignores the desire to please and seduce and home, as in Christ on the soldier who spit, insult and contempt have no control. Supreme virtue and scandal in the same breath. Hence his clumsiness, his naivete and simplicity are worth it to be taken for a simpleton, a man a little ridiculous that we do not know if it is good or not, an "idiot" precisely.
And how is it that the prince is, itself, devoid of the disease common to men and moralists of the seventeenth century and called Pascal "Vanity of desire of glory," how is it that has not been denatured by the perversions of self-love, secretly or not, corrupt, according to La Rochefoucauld, all human relationships and make a game of masks and dupes? "The gentleman is entirely in his mask," wrote Rousseau's Emile
, it is true that, conversely, the Prince is a stranger to all these rules for the allocation and propriety: "Always Is that sooner or later he would have to introduce the prince in the world - a world he had no idea. " This is the second axis, no less critical than the previous interpretation. If Myshkin retains this innocence that Rousseau attributes to native men on the state of nature, it is not under an education that would have preserved from corruption and artificiality of the social game is that it is not out of this "love of self" which, in Rousseau, means the quasi-divine sense of life experiences itself in its fullness autarkic Myckine which is, in turn, experience in the crucial test of the dazzling and seizures. The idiocy, goodness, seizure and experience of the fullness of life in its greatest intensity are related in an essential way. Let us see how. The idiocy
refers to how the Prince appears on the social scene; kindness or compassion, is the fundamental term of its relationship to suffering beings he encounters on his way (the younger Mary in Switzerland, for example ), for epilepsy, it is an opportunity for enlightenment, which, far from being pathological or morbid perception is almost "mystical" Life as a total and absolute harmony.
The founding experience the feeling of life
Three times in
The Idiot mention explicitly, but more or less developed, the founding experience drift whose pity, the feeling of fullness of life - that Rousseau called self-love - which provides, in the words of Dostoïeski, "the key to the riddle: walking in the mountains in Switzerland, in the moments immediately before the condemned man's execution, the epileptic seizure. For clarity in the exposition, beginning with the last, because it is the most intense one on which Dostoevsky was most explained.
"The idea that Dostoevsky himself had epilepsy, wrote George Steiner, is ambivalent and full of religious overtones: he saw a race cruel and degrading and a mysterious gift that could allow a man to gain access to moments of illumination and penetration miraculous. In the words of Prince Myshkin in The Idiot and dialogue between Shatov and Kirilov in The Possessed depict seizures like moments of full awareness, as the explosion forces the deepest and most secret life. Nowhere does Dostoevsky suggests that "idiot" regrets the harm he is sanctifying afflicted. "
is in Chapter V of Book I that Dostoevsky expressed most clearly the relationship between epilepsy and experience intense feelings of life, what he calls himself "the higher synthesis of Life: "The feeling of life, self-awareness, increased tenfold during this time that extended the duration of a flash. The spirit, the heart of an extraordinary light lit up: all its troubles, doubts, his worries seemed to subside at once, resolved themselves into a sort of quiet upper full of joy, light, smooth, Full of hope and reason, full the definitive cause. "[Liv. 4, V, p. 375]. This flash precedes the crisis itself, which as such is a "disease", "a transgression of the normal state, so there would be no reason, it seems, of see a "higher state": it should instead demonstrate "the existence of more than." But this conclusion "objective", medical, pathologizes that the test is not precisely true: "Who cares whether a disease? Had he finally concluded. What can it make whether an abnormal tension, if the result itself, if the minute of feeling, when one remembers her, and when examined in full health, is the ultimate degree, harmony, beauty, and if it gives you a unsuspected sense of fullness, a sense of measure, of appeasement, that of merging in ecstatic prayer, in the higher synthesis of life. These phrases seemed to cloud itself very understandable, though still too weak. But, this, this was really "the beauty and prayer ', that was really the" higher synthesis of life ", he never doubted and he could not even admit there is any doubt "[p. 375-376]. Note that this experiment "ecstatic" of fullness and total happiness, but also an agreement of the faculties, if it is at once metaphysical and religious, is not specifically "Christian". It is not presented as a personal experience of union with God, and the figure of Christ or the Word is strangely absent. At left is that of Mohammed is mentioned: the revelation of "houses of Allah" is given to epileptic prophet, between the instant when the pitcher falters and falls ashore [liv. 4, V, p. 377].
continued ...
___________________ * For an overview of developments in the main intrigue of the novel and their significance, I refer you to the admirable introduction by Joseph Frank in the U.S. edition of The Idiot
(The Modern Library Paperback Edition, New York ). Joseph Frank, professor emeritus of Slavic literature and comparative literature at Princeton University, is also the author of a monumental five-volume biography, which refers to Dostoevsky. He also published
Dostoevsky, A Writer in His Time (Princeton University Press, 2010) I have just purchased and I have yet to read (950 pages, in tiny print!)
