Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Use this topic for discussion of anything happening up through Chapter 27. If your post concerns only Chapters 1-17, you can still post it in the week 1 topic, which will remain open, since people might not start reading this topic's posts until they have finished through chapter 27, in order to avoid spoilers.

Patrice wrote: "chapter l9 page l39 in Grossman

And so I say that the wise man I have already mentioned (he means the writer of his history) must have put on your tongue and in your thoughts the idea of calling m..."

I think he is in a sense writing his own character. He seems to take it for granted that someone will write down his heroic deeds as someone wrote down the histories of the knights he patterns himself after.

In chapter 22, DQ meets up with the chain gang. He inquires as to the guilt of the prisoners. He wonders how it can be known if they are truly guilty or innocent.
DQ converses with the prisoners and chooses to believe the prisoner's stories of their innocence, although their tales of woe are parodies of the truth. He believes that they are victims of their station in life or circumstance rather than their own poor choices.
In our own criminal justice system, the defense often presents the case that it was the environment that made the criminal do the crime and not the criminal that is at fault.
When DQ frees the prisoners, they return the favor by coming back to fight him.
(This is not meant to be a political comment, just a coincidental one, which seems so relevant to this incident, that I am posting it with this political spoiler note so you can stop reading now.)
Just the other day, a released Gitmo prisoner, named Rasoul, came back to fight another day, leading the Taliban against our troops in Afghanistan. The more things change the more they remain the same!

Patrice wrote: "chapter l9

Does the beginning of this chapter imply a criticism of religion?


It certainly seems that way, given the way the chapter starts, followed by Quixote's "sacriligious" attack on innocent clergy, and ending with his excommunication.

But what struck me was all the legalistic quibbling in this chapter. Quixote turns the tables on Sancho, admitting his "sins" but basically saying it was Sancho's fault for not "reminding" him of his vows. Similarly, the Licenciate and his company are responsible for appearing to DQ in the night as "evil beings." The world is responsible for appearing as it does to DQ.

And finally, DQ is excommunicated for "laying violent hands on something sacred." To which he responds that he did not use his hands -- he used his lance. And besides, El Cid was excommunicated, so who cares?

thewanderingjew wrote: "In chapter 22, DQ meets up with the chain gang. He inquires as to the guilt of the prisoners. He wonders how it can be known if they are truly guilty or innocent.
"

Quixote's rationale is interesting, because he finally agrees that they are all in fact guilty of their faults. (Though perhaps if one had more money for a better lawyer, or another had been more courageous under torture they would not have been convicted.) More importantly though, they are being punished "unwillingly and involuntarily," which offends his sense of honor. Punishment should be rendered by the offended party, or by God, but not by jailers or the justice system.

"All of which is pictured in my mind...and is compelling me to show to all of you the reason that heaven put me in the world and made me profess the order of chivalry."

Patrice wrote: "did anyone notice that the speech that DQ gives about living off of the land and letting Gd take care of them sounded like the "lillies of the field" sermon from Matthew?"

Yes. There are a lot of biblical quotes in the book.

Patrice wrote: "So is DQ a Christ figure? Sometimes it seems so but other times not at all! "

I would say not, though some of the experiences he went through would fit.

Patrice wrote: " In the beginning I thought that DQ felt that a man could define himself b..."

I don't want to judge DQ less than a quarter of the way through the book, but my feeling at this point is that he isn't his own man at all. To a certain extent you're right -- good deeds, heroic and romantic ones -- are how he defines himself. But his motivations are not his own, and therein lies the problem.

Every once in a while we glimpses of DQ acknowledging the reality of a situation, for example in ch. 20 he sees the fulling hammers for what they really are (as opposed to the windmill episode.) This moment of lucidity is really depressing for him, as Sancho mocks him and he has to defend his courage. But we know from this that he is not completely delusional -- it's a willful act, and it isn't easy to keep it up 24/7.

I'm not sure if this will hold up for the rest of the book, but I'm starting to wonder if this story isn't an indictment of faith itself. I hope that's just me being cynical...

Patrice wrote: "BTW, Thomas, I can't help thinking I'm talking to James Joyce! It's very nice.

"

That picture is so tiny I'm surprised you could make it out! But I'm a big fan.

Patrice wrote: "There are several articles (Journal of Dental Research Cervantes: Father of DQ and son of a dentist. being one) that claim that because Cervantes father was a dentist there are many references t..."

I did notice when he talked about how he lost all his 'cheek teeth'. When I was little I used to dream about teeth a lot. I have determined that my subconscious mind was trying to tell me that the ideas and beliefs that I was taught were something like baby teeth and they needed to be lost in order for the adult teeth to grow in. Maybe Cervantes was trying to parodoxically show that all the ideals we are taught as children are based on society and don't really mean so much in and of themselves.

That was an interesting comment about the sheep. It made me remember in the Bible how Jesus talked about how he was the shepherd and his disciples were the sheep. Sheep are really not very intelligent, I have heard.

I am beginning to feel that DQ is an indictment of reason, when used without judgment. Perhaps his message is also that those "on high" who have power, often lack the judgment they pretend to have, when they rule those below them, and are not worthy of the roles they assume simply because of birthright or selection.
Maybe he was trying to send the message that educated men, respected men with "pedigrees", may not be worthy of that respect since they too can make foolish decisions, a theme repeated throughout history.
DQ creates plausible excuses for everything but his judgment is so faulty because of his delusions, that he doesn't understand his reasoning is, as well.
The squire, thought to be the fool, is becoming the wise advisor, as Sancho begins more and more to see the flaws in DQ's reason and to see his behavior as foolish and unreasonable. In his desire to do good, DQ is beginning to do more harm. What is that saying, "the road to H--l is paved with good intentions"?
Does Sancho wake up, gain control of his own reason, and realize his mistake is to continue to follow DQ, who may be well intentioned but is definitely wrong-headed? Don't we see examples of this faulty judgment in the present day?
Is Cervantes, through DQ, really saying he is disappointed with humanity?

Dianna wrote: "Patrice wrote: "There are several articles (Journal of Dental Research Cervantes: Father of DQ and son of a dentist. being one) that claim that because Cervantes father was a dentist there are m..."That was an interesting comment about the sheep. It made me remember in the Bible how Jesus talked about how he was the shepherd and his disciples were the sheep. Sheep are really not very intelligent, I have heard.

I found this explanation of sheep on this website:
http://www.spiritualwisdom.org.uk/ani...
"Sheep are symbols of the simple goodness we bring to life when we have the desire and affection to do good for others and to be good ourselves. Such goodness is gentle and patient, just like sheep, but needs to be protected from attack by other selfish parts of our character that can easily destroy our desire to do good for others. This can be seen in the way a shepherd is able to bring a flock of sheep together to protect and guide it and rescue those ones that have gone astray. In the Bible flocks of sheep were often a sign of material wealth just as we can be spiritually rich if we bring together all sorts of good affections in our lives".

In this light it would seem that DQ was attacking goodness in his effort to do good. He was at cross purposes with himself!

I think you are right, Patrice. It could be an indictment of fanaticism, which as you wrote, is alive and well today. Reason is often clouded by excessive zeal.

If he was indeed a Jew, he would be aware of this history which is an interesting aside:

"Zealotry was originally a political movement in first century Judaism which sought to incite the people of Iudaea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the holy land by force of arms, most notably during the Great Jewish Revolt (AD 66-70). Zealotry was described by Josephus as one of the "four sects" at this time.

The term Zealot, in Hebrew kanai (קנאי, frequently used in plural form, קנאים), means one who is zealous on behalf of God. The term derives from Greek ζηλωτής (zelotes), "emulator, zealous admirer or follower".

"In the Talmud, the Zealots are also called the Biryonim meaning "boorish" or "wild", and are condemned for their aggression, their unwillingness to compromise to save the survivors of besieged Jerusalem, and their blind-militarism. They are further blamed for having contributed to the demise of Jerusalem and the second Jewish Temple, and of ensuring Rome's retributions and stranglehold on Judea...

The Zealots advocated violence against the Romans and their Sadducee Jewish collaborators, raiding for provisions and other activities that aided their cause."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealotry

Patrice wrote: "message l8

Thomas, maybe it's not an indictment of faith but of being a zealot? Just think of what was being done in the name of religion in Cervantes day. Then think of what is being done in th..."

Zealotry is a good word for it. But I think the object of Quixote's faith is chivalry rather than religion. As we see by his reaction to being excommunicated, I don't think he's too concerned about religion. Zealotry for religion could very well have the same type of effect, I think, but it doesn't seem to be Quixote's fixation.

thewanderingjew wrote: In this light it would seem that DQ was attacking goodness in his effort to do good. He was at cross purposes with himself!
."

Interesting point. I hadn't thought of the sheep in symbolic terms, but it certainly makes the episode that much more poignant. DQ seems to be at cross purposes with himself a lot!

This is so interesting. Wonderful; I love it.

Well, I was talking about the whole thread itself. lol I think we posted at the exact same time because I hadn't even read what you posted when I posted lol. It's ok, I just love the intelligent dialogue from everyone, which is hard to find in most forums, and I wanted to say I appreciate it.

Patrice wrote: "Maybe this is a stretch but I sometimes also thing of DQ and Sancho as conducting a Platonic dialog. DQ is guided by his faith in "the form of the good" and Sancho is, like Aristotle, more empirical. He says at one point that his "five senses" (like Aristotle) will guide him to the truth. DQ never obeys his senses. Like Plato he thinks the senses are unreliable and truth is in the form, that is unchanging and universal. Sancho, like Aristotle, thinks truth is found through experience and observation.
"

I like these ideas Patrice.

Dianna wrote: "Well, I was talking about the whole thread itself. lol I think we posted at the exact same time because I hadn't even read what you posted when I posted lol. It's ok, I just love the intelligent ..."

It is all very interesting, isn't it, Dianna. Wish I could think of something to add, but I'm just sitting here purring.

Patrice wrote: "Page l69 Grossman

"To serve God and the king, I've already spent four years on the galleys, and I know the taste of the hardtack and the overseer's whip" responded Gines. "And I'm not too sorry t..."

Gines as Cervantes is a fascinating idea! I like it. I'm troubling a bit over how Cervantes would identify with a thief though. (It is interesting that Gines doesn't come clean about what his crimes are. The guard calls him a thief, and we can assume by the way he is bound he has probably shown that he is an escape risk and an experienced criminal leader.)

But if Cervantes is a kind of thief, how is that? Maybe satire is a kind of theft. The author is stealing from the popular genre fiction of his time, in order to ridicule it. I don't know if that pans out. Just a thought.

It's also interesting that Gines says his book, an autobiography, can't be finished until his life is finished. Reminds me of Solon's famous saying: "Consider no man happy until he is dead, only lucky." And it certainly was Gines' lucky day!

Wow! This is all fascinating conjecture.

Cervantes was jailed several times, sometimes in his capacity as commissary for the navy. The offense was "overzealous requisition," and strangely enough this also got him excommunicated.

He was also jailed once on suspicion of murder, but he doesn't appear to have been convicted of it. His longest term was as a prisoner of war when his ship was attacked by hostile Turks. He spent 5 years in an Algiers prison, when he was finally ransomed. While in prison he gained a reputation as a "Gines" type character -- a leader of resistance, and he attempted to escape more than once.

(Info from the Encyclopedia of World Biography)

Did anyone else besides me have trouble attending to the case of the curious impertinent. To me it seemed like it didn't belong in the story. I am trying to figure out the point of it.

Dianna wrote: "Did anyone else besides me have trouble attending to the case of the curious impertinent. To me it seemed like it didn't belong in the story. I am trying to figure out the point of it."

I don't think i got that far or i missed it!!! I stopped at the end of chapter 27.

Patrice wrote: "Something made me curious to re-read the prologue and I strongly urge everyone to take another look at it now. He explains how this is a simple book meant to parody books of chivalry. There is no..."

Or maybe there is no Aristotle or Plato in it? I think it's certainly possible to see the marks of these philosophers in DQ and Sancho, but it may be as simple as the fact that DQ is idealistic beyond common sense, to the point of delusion in fact, whereas Sancho is simply pragmatic.

I think it's certainly possible to draw parallels, in so far as Socrates is an idealist and Aristotle is an empiricist (to a point) BUT I'm not convinced that DQ and Sancho are embodiments of these philosophies. They may reflect them at times, but so do we all!

While I was rereading Ch. 22, thinking about Patrice's idea about Gines and Cervantes, I foundered on a comment that Gines makes to Senor Commissary:

"Enough! One day those dark stains at the inn may come to light, so let's all hold our tongues, and live well, and speak better, and keep walking; the joke's gone on too long."

The commissary takes this as a threat and raises to strike Gines, and then DQ steps in and does his thing.

Any ideas about what these "dark stains" might be? Did I miss something?

Thomas wrote: "While I was rereading Ch. 22, thinking about Patrice's idea about Gines and Cervantes, I foundered on a comment that Gines makes to Senor Commissary:

"Enough! One day those dark stains at the inn..."

Without getting too technical or controversial, I hope,..., I have read the dark stains had something to do with the stain of Jewish blood. Perhaps someone can elaborate who knows more about this.

I promise to look it up later. I have to run out since I have out of town company and for a change (and I mean that in the largest sense of the word), THE SUN IS FINALLY SHINING!
I found several sources that said it though. It might take me awhile to find them. patience...

Thomas wrote: "While I was rereading Ch. 22, thinking about Patrice's idea about Gines and Cervantes, I foundered on a comment that Gines makes to Senor Commissary:

"Enough! One day those dark stains at the inn..."

I've read this passage a few times and I took it as a threat from Gines to the commissary. It seems like he says just enough for the commissary to understand him. He's conveying the message treat us well or I might just let that stuff about the inn slip out. Maybe we're not really supposed to know what he's talking about it's enough that the comissary does.

Eliza wrote: "I've read this passage a few times and I took it as a threat from Gines to the commissary. It seems like he says just enough for the commissary to understand him..."

Thanks, Eliza. Maybe it's something that will come up again later. I was just wondering if I had missed something simple that would have explained it.

Anybody have any thoughts about Cardenio? How do you all feel about his "madness" as compared to Don Quixote's?

Thomas wrote: "Anybody have any thoughts about Cardenio? How do you all feel about his "madness" as compared to Don Quixote's? "

I liked Cardenio's story. It seemed very Shakespearean to me. As far as his madness goes I felt that he was more overwhelmed by grief and anger as opposed to DQ who is creating his own reality.

In Ch. 25 DQ is in the process of explaining to Sancho why he is doing penance and in the Sierra Morena -- because he wishes to imitate Amadis when he was scorned by the Lady Oriana. Sancho objects that these knights did these things for a reason, while his Lady Dulcinea has done nothing to warrant this behavior. DQ's response is really interesting:

"Therein lies the virtue of my enterprise, for a knight errant deserves neither glory nor thanks if he goes mad for a reason. The great achievement is to lose one's reason for no reason..."

The argument being that if you can lose your reason for no reason, then certainly you can lose it if you have a good reason. (And if you have lost your reason, how do you tell the difference?)

Cardenio, on the other hand, is not only more logical in his madness, he is someone we can sympathize with. In some sense he is not responsible for his madness... whereas DQ is?

edited for spoilers and put in another thread.

Dianna wrote: "I'm not too sure about chapters because I don't think my translation has it set up the same way but has anyone read where the Moorish woman comes to the inn riding on a donkey and her name is Mary?"

Dianna -- Mary (Maria in the Grossman translation) enters in Chap. 37. I just started reading that myself.

Yeah, mine says Maria too but if Mary, the mother of Jesus was Spanish I think her name would have been Maria...

Patrice wrote: "Just wondering if anyone saw Charlie Rose last night? He had a brain researcher on who explained that there is a "mirroring" part of the brain. He feels it's part of our genetic leap forward. Ou..."

Isn't that how cultures were suppposed to be passed in prehistoric times? Wasn't there kind of a collective memory?

Okay, did anyone, on reading Don Quixote talking about having to bang his head on rocks, think of Dobby the house elf?