64 pages • 2 hours read
Fyodor DostoevskyThe Idiot
Fiction | Novel | Adult | Published in 1869A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Symbols & Motifs
The Portrait of Jesus Christ
In Rogozhin's house, Myshkin notices a large portrait of Jesus Christ, The Body of the Dead Christ in the Tomb (1520-1522) by German artist Hans Holbein the Younger. The painting strikes Myshkin because it does not depict Christ in the conventional manner. The long, narrow life-size painting shows a glimpse into Christ’s tomb after the crucifixion. Christ is dead, laying prone on a marble slab with the wounds of his execution still visible. He looks like any dead body, with his mouth open and his eyes rolled upward. The painting draws attention to the human rather than the divine qualities of Jesus Christ, reminding the viewer that of the physical pain and torment of his execution and the finality of his death. In The Idiot, a copy of the painting is hung on the wall on Rogozhin’s dark, shadowy home. As Myshkin leaves Rogozhin’s gloomy home, he is struck by the painting as he believes that it has the power to destroy a person’s religious beliefs. Rogozhin agrees with Myshkin, but he lacks Myshkin’s outrage.
Their reactions to the painting are symbolic demonstrations o’ their similarities and differences. Both men agree that the painting has the power to disavow a person of Christian beliefs, but Myshkin believes this to be an outrage, but Rogozhin believes it to be a matter of course. Myshkin is a Christian who delivers long speeches about the importance and vitality of the Russian Orthodox Church. Rogozhin is disinterested in religion and, as his reaction to the painting suggests, he may already have lost his faith. Rogozhin never admits to being an atheist, but he quickly agrees with Myshkin's horrified assertion that the painting has the power to destroy Christian beliefs. To Rogozhin, this is obvious, this is good, and this has already happened to him. The competing reactions to the painting symbolize the different ideologies held by Myshkin and Rogozhin.
The context of the painting is a symbolic refutation of atheism. A lack of belief in God is presented as a debilitating condition, far removed from Myshkin’s lauded innocent devotion. The painting is in Rogozhin’s house, a gloomy and depressing place. The lighting in the house and the demeanor of its owner suggest that the building is, in a symbolic fashion, far removed from the light of God. Whether Rogozhin purchased the painting because he was an atheist or whether the painting has turned him into an atheist is immaterial; the portrayal of the dead Christ is a gloomy subject matter in the gloomy house of a gloomy man. In this sense, the painting is an example of pathetic fallacy in the novel. The painting is a piece of the scenery which echoes the emotional state of its owner. Rogozhin’s emotional detachment from the religious world is echoed by the house and by the painting. Myshkin’s horrified reaction to the painting is not just a horror at the contents of the piece, but at the emotional state it represents. Myshkin is too naïve to recognize Rogozhin’s hollowness, but he recognizes the lack of faith in the painting. In this moment, Myshkin becomes tacitly aware of the inherent symbolism of the painting and its placement, though he struggles to resolve this irreligious tension throughout the rest of the novel.
Epilepsy and Sickness
Myshkin suffers from epilepsy to such a serious degree that he has spent many years in a sanitarium in Switzerland, where a doctor has attempted to treat his condition. According to Myshkin’s own recollections, he was catatonic for portions of his life before being sent to the sanitarium and he was deemed as being not able to function in society. As such, Myshkin has been kept away from society for many years. At the start of the novel, he is reintroduced to Russian society and the novelty of everything is so intense that he is surprised he can even speak the language. After leaving the sanitarium, Myshkin is notably different to other people. He is kind, sincere, and frank in ways which other people cannot understand. They treat him as though he is sick or suffering from a mental health disorder. In this respect, there is a clear symbolic difference between the reality of Myshkin’s sickness and the way in which society perceives his sickness.
To Myshkin, the reality of epilepsy means that he is physically different from society and prone to being betrayed by his own body when suffering from seizures. He treats this difference as a reason to be good and kind to people. Society, however, views Myshkin as being broken. To most people, his sickness is not his epilepsy but his manner. He is unsuitable for the jaded and cynical society to such an extent that his real sickness is his honesty. Epilepsy is a symbolic excuse for most characters, allowing them to ignore Myshkin’s vital criticisms of society as a product of a broken mind. Myshkin’s epilepsy symbolizes his difference from most people in society, while most people’s interpretation of his sickness symbolizes the true moral sickness of the society he is attempting to understand.
At the end of the novel, Rogozhin murders Nastasya and Myshkin is crushed by the experience. After comforting Rogozhin, after Rogozhin is sent to Siberia, Myshkin is unable to continue in society. He is sent back to the sanitarium, having returned to the catatonic state that prompted his first round of treatment. At the novel’s end, Myshkin’s sickness symbolizes the sickness of society. Myshkin has tried repeatedly to be a moral person in an immoral world; his attempts to be sincere and open with the world, to introduce empathy and pity to others, have only ended in tragedy. This failure has a disastrous effect on his mental health: in effect, society breaks Myshkin and punishes him for his naïve innocence. His mental health is deemed too fragile to endure the barrage of pain, trauma, and cynicism which society directs at him. Rather than being killed by the serious medical condition which threatens his life (his epilepsy), Myshkin is actually destroyed by the attempt to be good in a cynical world. The society rejects his attempt and, in retribution, shatters his mind and spirit. Myshkin tries to diagnose and cure the sickness of the world but, in the end, the sickness overwhelms him in a symbolic rejection of his ideals.
The Vase
Madame Epanchin owns a very expensive Chinese-made vase. Not only is the vase expensive, but it is fragile. Myshkin is explicitly told about both the fragile and expensive nature of the vase as a word of warning, reminding him not to break it. The vase is a symbol of the complex system of manners and etiquette which govern elite high society social gatherings in Saint Petersburg. These unspoken rules are understood by everyone except Myshkin. Like the vase, the system of manners is a fragile thing which is appreciated by the rich and the powerful. Like the vase, the system of manners is vulnerable to someone as alien and as forthright as Myshkin. While delivering an impassioned, sincere speech, Myshkin breaks the vase. He breaks the rules which were imposed upon him, both shattering the vase and holding ideological court with social criticisms. Myshkin has been told by Aglaya to behave in a certain fashion and the vase is a symbol of his ability to obey her request and adhere to the social rules which she tells him to follow. He breaks the vase as he breaks his promise to her, unable to control himself from speaking honestly and sincerely just as he is unable to control the movement of his arm at an unfortunate moment. Myshkin breaks the vase, symbolically suggesting that all social attempts to change his character and his behavior will never work. This symbol act foreshadows his tragic fate and his eventual mental breakdown.
In a larger sense, the vase symbolizes the hollowness of the society. Aglaya explains at length how valuable and important the vase is to her mother, Madame Epanchin. Myshkin fears this warning. By telling him repeatedly of the vase's importance, he worries that Aglaya has doomed him to break the vase and break her mother's trust in him. Myshkin does break the vase, but he does not lose Madame Epanchin's respect or love. Instead, she momentarily mourns the loss of the vase and then the plot moves forward. Ultimately, the vase means nothing. It was a mere trinket which was imbued with importance because of its cost and its rarity. The vase did not provide any functional use, nor did it have a particular sentimental value. Like so many things in the story, its importance was an illusion, a social construct which only had power because the characters imbued it with power. Myshkin suffers no real consequence for breaking the vase because, to the rich elites of Saint Petersburg, it can easily be replaced with another fancy, expensive ornament. Rather than anything of real value, the rich only have fragile trinkets which they invest with meaning. By breaking the vase, Myshkin helps to show the rich people of Saint Petersburg that their luxury goods are hollow, meaningless expressions of an immoral life. As is often the case, however, the characters ignore him and his social critiques. The breaking of the vase proves to be just as meaningless and as inconsequential as the actual vase and the society that it represents.
Related Titles
By Fyodor Dostoevsky
