Innocence v. Foolishness Theme Analysis

The Idiot explores the question of what profound, total moral innocence would look like, and whether this might be taken for foolishness. The novel’s main character, Prince Myshkin, is a totally pure human being who is admired and adored by other characters but is also often characterized as a fool (or an “idiot”—hence the book’s title). The book shows that this characterization of the prince as a fool is mistaken, as Myshkin is actually very insightful. Rather than being a form of foolishness, moral innocence is, in fact, a kind of profound wisdom.

The people around Myshkin do not understand that his innocence is a form of wisdom because they mistake it for other forms of innocence, which are (rightfully) associated with ignorance or foolishness. For example, he is often perceived as childlike, such as when the unnamed elderly schoolteacher comments, “The prince blushes at an innocent joke like an innocent young girl.” The form of innocence that children and especially “young girls” are thought to have is morally pure, but also unknowing and naïve. Blushing at an “innocent joke” would suggest that Myshkin is oversensitive. He may be morally upstanding, but he is also oblivious to the full reality of the world, which—it is implied—would make him more tough and cynical. Similarly, at one point, Keller tells Myshkin, “Oh, Prince, your view of life is still so bright and innocent, and even, one might say, pastoral!” Again, this comment affirms Myshkin’s innocence while insinuating that this innocence is necessarily a form of ignorance or naivety. The word “still” emphasizes the idea that Myshkin is childlike or sheltered, and that once he encounters the reality of the world his innocence will necessarily be lost. Meanwhile, the term “pastoral” contrasts Myshkin’s pure and old-fashioned view of the world (which is linked to a simple, rural way of life) with the weary cynicism of city-dwellers.

Indeed, at this point in Russian history, the vast majority of people living in the countryside were uneducated, illiterate, and deeply religious peasants, while in the cities bourgeois and aristocratic individuals (such as the characters in the novel) debated modern theories of socialism, nihilism, and atheism. As such, Keller’s comment that Myshkin has a “pastoral” view of the world emphasizes the idea that Myshkin is backwards and naïve. This false belief is strengthened by the fact that Myshkin has spent the past five years literally sheltered from the world in a medical institution in Switzerland, receiving treatment for epilepsy. Many of the characters perceive Myshkin’s illness as not only producing innocent foolishness, but as a kind of innocent foolishness in and of itself. Describing Myshkin early in the novel, General Epanchin says that he is “a perfect child, and even quite pathetic; he has fits of some illness.” Again, the fact that the general calls Myshkin a “child” when he is actually an adult shows how Myshkin’s epilepsy infantilizes him in the minds of others. Furthermore, the general’s pairing of “perfect” and “pathetic” indicates that even while the characters recognize the prince’s profound moral innocence, they see it as a form of vulnerability akin to his illness. In reality, Myshkin’s epilepsy does at times impair his cognitive faculties, but his moral purity is actually a way in which he balances or overcomes this by having special insight into the world.

The association of innocence and foolishness is also cemented in the minds of the characters by the figure of the yurodivy or “holy fool,” also known as “fool for God” or “fool for Christ.” Rogozhin tells Myshkin, “You come out as a holy fool, Prince, and God loves your kind!” These words convey the simultaneously revered and denigrated status of holy fools in Russia at the time. Rogozhin acknowledges that Myshkin is sacred and beloved by God, but there is an obvious patronizing note to his comment. In a bourgeois urban climate of moral cynicism and increasing atheism, being a holy fool is seen as retrograde and silly. Ultimately, however, the book shows that other people’s views of Myshkin are mistaken. His innocence is not actually a form of foolishness, but rather a remarkable form of insight and wisdom. Sometimes the other characters get close to recognizing this, although they usually are not able to fully understand it. For example, Doktorenko accuses the prince of being “so good at exploiting your…hm, sickness (to put it decently),” in order to socially manipulate people according to his wishes. He concludes “It’s either all too innocent, or all too clever…you, however, know which.” These words indicate that Doktorenko believes that innocence and cleverness are opposites, and that being clever necessarily means being scheming and deceptive. The truth is that Myshkin’s innocence actually provides him with a special form of intelligence, affording him powerful insight into personalities and social dynamics.

Similarly, in the same passage in which Keller calls the prince “pastoral,” he also exclaims that he is “confounded” by Myshkin’s insight into the minds of others: “For pity’s sake, Prince: first such simple-heartedness, such innocence as even the golden age never heard of, then suddenly at the same time you pierce a man through like an arrow with this deepest psychology of observation.” Keller begs for the prince to explain this “contradiction.” Yet what the book actually shows is that there is really no contradiction at all. The character of Myshkin shows that true, profound moral innocence is actually a very powerful and incisive type of wisdom, not a form of foolishness.