In The Idiot, Aglaya continues to describe the “lovesick” knight of the poem:
“…It’s clear that by now it was all the same to this ‘poor knight’ who his lady was and what she did. It was enough that he chose her and believed in her ‘pure beauty’, and then worshipped her for ever…that even if later she became a thief, he would still be bound to believe in her and break a lance for her pure beauty. It seems that the poet wanted to unite in one extreme image the whole enormous concept of medieval chivalrous platonic love in a pure and lofty knight; of course, all that is an ideal. (291).”
The medieval chivalrous knight would typically pledge his everlasting love to a beautiful maiden. This would keep him going during his long, arduous travels. Don Quixote fulfills this knightly attribute of romantic love by swearing his undying love to Dulcinea (a name he invents and attaches to a girl he once saw in his village.) Cervantes, therefore, is mocking romantic love here since Don Quixote idolizes a lover who in reality does not exist. It is as if Don Quixote seeks to revive knight errantry at any cost, even to the point of fighting enemies that don’t exist to honor a woman of unknown identity. Don Quixote tells us, “I believe that everything is as I see it…and in my imagination I portray her as I wish her to be both in beauty and in quality.” He challenges men to duel if he feels that they have slandered the virtue of Dulcinea which, in his mind, shows that he is honoring his maiden and that he is willing to defend those who cannot defend themselves. In defending her honor, he is able to validate his fantasy of being a selfless and brave knight. Indeed, he tells Sancho, “Every knight-errant…is bound to stand up against everyone…in defense of the honor of all women,” especially those who are “very beautiful …and long-suffering in…countless misfortunes (239).”
Similarly, in The Idiot, the Prince is willing to marry the beautiful and long-suffering Nastasya Filippovna in order to save her from dishonor (and probable death). He upholds the chivalric ideals of protecting the weak and defending a maiden’s honor, however, because he sincerely has sympathy for Nastasya as a victim who has been shamed by Totsky. Thus, he attempts to save her from destroying herself by marrying Rogozhin. He does not love Nastasya romantically, but he is willing, out of sympathy for her, to uphold the chivalric ideal of romantic love in order to save her from Rogozhin as well as from herself. He is, in fact, so obsessed with saving her that he (naively) attempts this even at the expense of alienating Aglaya and ruining his own chance at true love and happiness.
Medieval maidens would sometimes test the knight’s love for her. He may have, for example, been required to fight in tournaments so that he might prove his undying love. Since Dulcinea was in effect a figment of Don Quixote’s imagination, she could not have put forth any such tests. Thus, Don Quixote, quite comically, attempts to subject himself to self-flagellation and to perform a number of “feats” intending that such antics would validate his devotion to her. Unlike the Prince, who would suffer in silence so long as he was able to save Nastasya, Don Quixote takes pains to ensure that Sancho is witness to his antics so that he can report same to Dolcinea. He tells Sancho, “I want to have time to let you see what I am saying and doing for my lady’s sake, that you may tell her about it…I have yet to tear my garments…and bang my head against the rocks, and other similar things that will amaze you (244).” Again, he is emulating the knights he has read about, not behaving simply from the pure heart of his inner character, as the Prince does.
Prince Myshkin, however, is indeed tested by both Aglaya and Nastasya. When they meet in the park, Aglaya subjects him to the test of her inquisition about his love for Nastasya. Nastasya, in the pivotal scene of the novel, deliberately puts the Prince in the position where he is basically forced to prove his allegiance to her, which he does (but, unwittingly, dishonors her rival, Aglaya, in the process).
The medieval knight also aspired to the Christian values of physical virginity and morality. He was to have a pure heart and to act virtuously at all times. While Don Quixote maintains physical fidelity to Dolcinea, his morality and virtuosity are questionable. In his inner world, of course, he adheres to a moral code and feels himself to be quite virtuous, but the fact that he attacks innocent people without provocation cannot be considered to be moral or virtuous. Further, he is in no way troubled by the suffering of those whom he attacks in the name of chivalry. Notwithstanding this, he admonishes Sancho for being a “bad Christian” when he says, “You never forget an injury once done to you, though you should realize that truly generous and noble souls pay no heed to trifles (201).” While Don Quixote gives lip service to these Christian values, the Prince epitomizes the principle of “turn the other cheek” in that he never takes offense when someone insults or betrays him. Indeed, he is as magnanimous and pure hearted as ever with such people. Burdovsky lies about being Pavlishchev’s son, and the Prince still gives him money. Lebedev constantly likes to him, and the Prince takes no offense. Aglaya is mean to him, and he just laughs it off. Further, although he never intended to hurt Aglaya, once Pavlovich impresses upon him that he has injured her, he is deeply distressed.
The Prince is truly altruistic; he naturally upholds a high morality and is virtuous to a fault. In fact, his selfless love for others is what causes him to be obsessed with saving Natasya. In defending her honor, he gives no thought to the personal consequences of his actions. He thinks not of himself, but only of the victim he is trying aid. In contrast, Don Quixote thinks only of his own reputation as a knight. His main objective is to enhance his own glory and fame. None of his exploits are truly benefiting Dolcinea; whereas, the Prince’s ideal of chivalric love is indeed reflected in his social interactions. Without deliberately setting out to do so, he truly lives out the ideal of chivalric love in that he is willing to sacrifice his own happiness for that of Nastasya’s.
The chivalrous knight was also expected to be loyal to his feudal state. Of Don Quixote, Cervantes tells us, “He believed that it was necessary, both for his own honor and for service of the state, that he should become a knight-errant…” (59). The point is moot in Don Quixote, however, because at the time of Don Quixote’s adventures, the feudal wars have ended; thus, this type of loyalty issue never actually arises for him. In The Idiot, however, the Prince is very concerned with loyalty to Russia. Indeed, he delivers a fanatical diatribe against those whom he feels are not loyal to everything Russian, in particular, the Catholics. His fervent, blind loyalty to Russia, and ardent wish to keep the Catholics from corrupting it can certainly be likened to the loyalty of the chivalrous knight toward his feudal state.
Knight-errants were always traveling from one adventure to another in their quest for spiritual meaning or fulfillment. Because Don Quixote yearns for a sense of purpose, he does see himself as becoming a knight-errant and embarking on a spiritual journey. His longing in this regard is fairly superficial, however. The Prince is quite different in this regard; he has an inborn spirituality that causes him to seek to uplift all of those whom he meets throughout his life.
Magical beings and supernatural occurrences in medieval romances (i.e., fairies, giants) also tested the knight’s virtue. We see this in Don Quixote, for example, when he sees a “dwarf” guarding the “castle,” and also in the various “enchantments” that Don Quixote perceives occur throughout his adventures. In The Idiot, we come in contact with what might be called the supernatural in the character of Rogozhin, who personifies the devil himself. Further, during the Prince’s epileptic fits, Cervantes implies that he enters a supernatural state during which various revelations come to him.
Don Quixote’s “chivalrous” behavior is not at all accepted by the society he lives in. Most of those whom Don Quixote encounters consider him completely mad. For the most part, they attempt to humor him, but he ultimately ends up being escorted home in a cage before he renounces his imaginary world and dies from disillusionment. Some of the Prince’s contemporaries, on the other hand, are, at least to some extent, understanding of his foibles because they can see that his actions stem from a pure heart. They do, at times, think him idiotic, become exasperated with his innocence and occasionally mock him, but, despite this, I think that many of them are also in awe of him because it is clear that, despite his eccentricity, he is so well-intentioned toward others. Certainly the reader is able to empathize with him for many reasons, not the least of which is that he loves unconditionally. Don Quixote’s unconventional behavior, however, which serves only to fulfill his own fantasies, does not, for the most part, endear people to him; however the comical tone in many of the scenes does tend to allow the reader to take less offense toward his actions. Still, it is clear that he is merely playing a part.
Both Don Quixote and the Prince are misunderstood and naively misunderstand the rationality of others in the respective novels. The Prince initially has no clue as to the rational explanation Pavlovich attempts to offer him of what happened during the Aglaya/Nastasya incident, and Don Quixote has no clue as to the rational ideas the priest and others try to relay to him. For both the Prince and Don Quixote, their naiveté contributes to their demise. The destruction of their chivalric ideals is also aided by the manipulation of other people. In addition, many of the people the Prince tries to help are actually destroyed through the process of his trying to help them (most notably Aglaya and Nastasya.) Similarly, when Don Quixote tries to defend the servant boy, he causes him an even worse fate.
In my view, Cervantes and Dostoyevsky, albeit in different ways, put forth a cynical or anti-idealizing view of the knightly code of behavior in that these well-intentioned “knights” end up wreaking havoc upon those they seek to honor. Dostoyevsky accomplishes this through the use of tragedy, while Cervantes puts forth how ridiculous these ideals are when taken to the extreme. He uses comedy, indeed even the slapstick type, to drive this point home. (Don Quixote’s naked antics in the forest are the most hilarious example of this.)
Don Quixote was not able to live as a chivalrous knight largely because his chivalric ideals were the result of a delusional fantasy and because such a code of behavior was not sanctioned by his society, and so he dies. The Prince was not able to realize his chivalric ideals, largely because his altruism was not able to penetrate the corrupt society in which he lived, and so he was driven mad. Despite their disparate motives for acting in a chivalrous manner, it seems that these chivalric ideals deem Don Quixote too crazy for the world, and Prince Myshkin, too good for it.
WORKS CITED
Cervantes (Saavedra), Miguel de. Don Quixote. McMillan & Co. Ltd., London, 1957
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. The Idiot. Penquin Books, Ltd., London, 2004