Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Are you ready to meet Dorothea? Will the priest and barber succeed in luring Don Quixote home? What will happen when everybody gathers back at the enchanted inn? How autobiographical is the captive's story?

We are starting to get some characters who don't just beat DQ or SP up and leave the stage, but who actually have meaty parts to play in the story. What do people think of these characters? Does this represent somewhat of a shift in the focus of the novel?

There does seem to be a shift away from DQ and his singular obsession, but the theme is always love and what drives the drama is deception.

The story of Anselmo and Lotario is fascinating to me -- it's a story within a story, inside of which there is a play, ala Hamlet. I love the way this is layered. The Cardenio-Dorotea story is similarly complex, though not as compact. But at the heart of both of these stories is love encountering deception.

And while DQ sleeps through the Anselmo-Lotario story, he wakes up (after having slain a few wine skin giants in his sleep) to his companions who want to enable his deception. I'm not so sure that someone as isolated in his own world as DQ is can be "cured" but it appears that DQ's companions want to give it the old college try.

I wonder if Cervantes isn't saying something about the use of fiction here. Is there such a thing as a "Noble Lie?"

Thomas wrote: "The story of Anselmo and Lotario is fascinating to me -- it's a story within a story, inside of which there is a play, ala Hamlet. I love the way this is layered. The Cardenio-Dorotea story is similarly complex, though not as compact."

Students of Shakespeare are generally aware that S is purported to have written, with John Fletcher, a lost play titled Cardenio or The History of Cardenio. We know of the play, know that it was performed by the King's Men in 1613, and have the entry in the Stationers Register attributing it to Shakespeare and Fletcher (though it may be a misattribution), but no copy exists.

The notes to Grossman's translation say that it is believed that this story in Cervantes was the basis of the play. I wonder whether S got it directly from Cervantes, or they both got it from another source. There was a 1612 translation of DQ which S or Fletcher could have read, and indeed Fletcher based other plays on work by Cervantes.

But I don't know whether Cervantes invented the story, or whether it was a traditional story that S could have picked up elsewhere.

Everyman wrote: "Thomas wrote: "The story of Anselmo and Lotario is fascinating to me -- it's a story within a story, inside of which there is a play, ala Hamlet. I love the way this is layered. The Cardenio-Dorote..."

I am not up to you guys but I am sure glad to see you back, Everyman.

thewanderingjew wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Thomas wrote: "The story of Anselmo and Lotario is fascinating to me -- it's a story within a story, inside of which there is a play, ala Hamlet. I love the way this is layered. Th..."

I am wondering if anyone else has pondered how this book would be received if it had been written today? At times the various tales often border on the ridiculous and push the limits of one's patience. Hundreds of years later we are attempting to interpret what may have had an altogether different purpose when written, or NOT! Are we making it more substantive than it was or did it really contain all these secret messages and hints of discontent?

thewanderingjew wrote: "...Are we making it more substantive than it was or did it really contain all these secret messages and hints of discontent?
..."

We can't know for sure, unless we have documents from Cervantes which say explicitly, but I suspect that much of the coding was intentional.

thewanderingjew wrote: "...Are we making it more substantive than it was or did it really contain all these secret messages and hints of discontent?
..."

We can't know for sure, unless we have documents from Cervantes which say explicitly, but I suspect that much of the coding was intentional.

I say this for several reasons. For one, the Inquisition was still an issue, monarchs could be imperious and touchy about criticism, and it was not safe to say certain things out in the open. Then also, books were an accepted way of expressing your views in a world where there weren't nearly as many opportunities as there are now. There was no SNL or Colbert Report or Franken to skewer the conventional wisdom openly; one had to be more subtle.

Think, for example, of Mother Goose, which contains all sorts of hidden political messages in what on the surface are just innocuous children's verses.

Everyman wrote: "thewanderingjew wrote: "...Are we making it more substantive than it was or did it really contain all these secret messages and hints of discontent?
..."

We can't know for sure, unless we have doc..."

I agree, but in view of the times, weren't the powers that be smart enough to realize the book might have been subversive in content or at the very least mocking them?

thewanderingjew wrote: "I agree, but in view of the times, weren't the powers that be smart enough to realize the book might have been subversive in content or at the very least mocking them?"


I think Cervantes had to know he was taking a chance at times, but looking at his biography we know that he was not afraid of risk.

But he is very good at presenting a story on several levels, and the surface level is pure entertainment. (A talent he shares with Shakespeare.) The primary characters are either completely deluded or delighfully naive -- and the interpolated tales are romances typical of the day. What harm could possibly come of that? Maybe he was banking on the entertaining outer skin of his story to keep him out of trouble.

On the other hand, I wonder sometimes if we aren't reading more into it than is really there. But if we're wrong, so what? That's what critical reading is all about. If this book were nothing more than a humorous escapade, it probably wouldn't have survived the last four centuries.

Thomas wrote: " If this book were nothing more than a humorous escapade, it probably wouldn't have survived the last four centuries"

I agree completely. Since no writer writes in a vacuum the culture,religion and politics have to have had some impact and part of the fun of reading is identifying where and how those influences show themselves in the book. I also love to see what different people notice.

When the barber and the priest were the two people to go through Quixote's books, we had a brief discussion of why these two. The reason offered was that they were probably among the few literate people in an early 17th century Spanish village.

But now that these are also the characters who come to bring DQ home, I think Cervantes may have chosen these for another reason. Considering that the barber in those times was generally also what passed for a local surgeon, these two represent the two aspects of human life (at least as seen at the time) -- spiritual and bodily. They would be ones to "keep body and soul together," as the saying has it.

Patrice wrote: "Descartes must have read DQ. DQ says "I think it therefore it's true". Descartes said "I think therefore I am". I'm wondering though, Cervantes was being ironic. Descartes wasn't. Descartes pr..."

Descartes' process was to doubt everything in order to find a fundamental starting point. For him, the first, most fundamental principle was the fact of his existence, proven by the fact that he was the subject of his own experience. In other words, if you think, then you must exist.

DQ's problem is almost the opposite, it seems. DQ's first principles are the rules of chivalry, and he doubts nothing unless it interferes with his idealism. And even then, he is more than willing to make up excuses for the discrepancies -- enchantment is always a handy explanation.

Patrice wrote: "for as they write show pieces for competition, they stretch the plot beyond its capacity, and are often forced to break the natural continuity.
..."

Interesting question. It's been a long time since I read the Poetics, but the criticism of episodic literature could easily be applied here. I think one of our challenges in reading DQ is to find the continuity, because it is so sprawling and contains so many individual dramatic scenes within the overarching structure.

Patrice wrote: "The story of Dorothea brings to mind, again, that things are not what they seem. She, at first is a peasant boy. Then a beautiful woman. She's a woman in charge of an estate, no less. ..."

And then, of course, she's a queen of a distant land. That's what Quixote believes, at least. What is the truth?

Patrice wrote: "Thomas, what you say about Descartes is true. I've just finished reading the Meditations. DQ is the opposite in that he doubts nothing. "

Does he really doubt nothing? He fits everything into his scheme of chivalric romance, but does he really doubt nothing? It seemed to me in an undercurrent that even he doubted the validity of his excuses for not rescuing Sancho from the tossing the inn.

But sticking with Descartes and being simplistic, is it fair to say that Descartes fits what he believes into the way he perceives the world to be, and Don Quixote fits the way he perceives the world to be into what he believes?

Patrice wrote: "I think I have it now. Descartes doesn't just "think" he reasons it out, like the mathematician he was. "

Hmmm. This isn't really a discussion of Descartes (is it? [g:]), but it seems he isn't thinking mathematically there, but but more logically in a reductio ab absurdum, that if you take doubt to its absolute you get an absurdity, because you have to exist in order to be able to doubt your existence.

How can something which doesn't exist doubt whether it exists? That's the essence of his thinking; I don't see that as mathematical.

I'm not sure, Patrice, but I think the argument against Descartes is that he allows rational inference from first principles. Strict empiricism has a problem with inference -- I'm thinking of people like Berkeley and Hume.

DQ defies both reason and empiricism, I think. But you could argue that if the principles of reason are as inaccurate as the principles of chivalry, then DQ is making the same error as Descartes. But then you'd have to convince us that rational thought is on the same operational level as the rules of chivalry. That might be a tough sell.

Everyman wrote: "Does he really doubt nothing? He fits everything into his scheme of chivalric romance, but does he really doubt nothing? It seemed to me in an undercurrent that even he doubted the validity of his excuses for not rescuing Sancho from the tossing the inn.."

I don't see DQ doubting himself, at least not yet. He has failures, and he recognizes them, but not as failures of perception. He reminds me of a scientist who tinkers with his experimental findings so they support his hypothesis. (Except that he does this pathologically rather than deliberately.) But as his misfortunes mount, one wonders how long this can continue. How long can faith sustain him when reality batters him at every turn?

I also wonder about faith in the context of the interpolated tales-- the faith, or maybe trust is a better word, that Cardenio has in his friend Don Fernando; Anselmo's faith in his wife that he tests to the breaking point; Maria's faith in Lela Marien. Is there a common thread running through these things?

Patrice wrote: "Page 250

"it is not the responsibility or concern of a knight errant to determine if the afflicted, the fettered, and the oppressed whom he meets along the road are in that condition and suffering..."

Grossman's note contends that when he says religion he means the religion of chivalry.

Is this also the principle of Christianity? Certainly there was a connection between Christianity and Chivalry. But this was Christianity of the Crusades, the Church Militant, the Knights Templar, which some may not see as being the Christianity of Jesus. Let's also recall that in Spain, Christianity was just going through (or perhaps ending) the Inquisition, and as you point out the Christians were decidedly unfriendly toward Jews and Muslims. So I'm not sure that Cervantes would have equated Christianity in his day with helping all who are in anguish.

What do others think of this possible linkage?

Everyman wrote: "What do others think of this possible linkage? "

I have difficulty with DQ as a representational character in general because he is so nonsensical. It's hard to see how he can represent anything when he can barely navigate his own fantasy.

I would also expect to see more of a religious cast to DQ if he were meant to represent Christianity. He's not very religious at all, unless you really consider chivalry to be a religion.

I am interested though in seeing how the Captive & Maria story plays out. She comes into town on a donkey to find there in no room in the inn. And as Dianna pointed out, her name is Mary. It's hard to miss that allusion!

Patrice wrote: "Thomas, am I working too hard?

He is inconsistent and nonsensical at times. But then he comes out with such beautiful thoughts. Are you saying that the things he says about righting wrongs, he..."

I think he is serious about those things, and he is to be taken seriously. If we don't take him seriously, then I think we deny him his humanity, and I think his humanity is what's key here.

The way I see DQ is that he is a man obsessed with his ideal to the exclusion of the reality around him, but where I disagree is that Christianity is not DQ's ideal, not his obsession. Chivalry and Christianity have some common principles, but they aren't identical. Has DQ mentioned Jesus as a role model? If he does I can't recall. On the other hand, he talks about Amadis constantly. I would expect DQ, if Christianity were his obsession, to go around trying to heal the sick and raise the dead and walk on water. But his main goal seems to be honoring Dulcinea with heroic acts of chivalry.

Obsession is what drives Cervantes' characters mad, and not only DQ. Grisostomo, Cardenio, Anselmo, are all driven mad or destroyed by their obsessions. So far I do see one character who is obsessed with Christianity -- Maria. I am very interested to see what happens with her in this context.

And no Patrice, you're not working too hard! This is great stuff. And just because I have a different view doesn't mean I'm right. I could be enchanted!

Great discussion, guys. Are there others reading along who have things to add? Please don't feel intimidated by the level of the discourse -- every contribution counts. Really!

Moral of the tale of Camilla and Anselmo: Curiosity killed the cad.

Patrice wrote: "I think that's a great analysis! You connected a lot of the dots. Thank you!"

There are a lot of dots to connect here, and many ways in which to connect them. I really appreciate your thoughts, Patrice. I don't think we're through with the Christianity connection!

Laurele wrote: "Moral of the tale of Camilla and Anselmo: Curiosity killed the cad."

Ha! But so true.

Everyman wrote: "Great discussion, guys. Are there others reading along who have things to add? Please don't feel intimidated by the level of the discourse -- every contribution counts. Really!"

I've fallen behind so I've stopped reading the comments until I catch up.

Thomas wrote, "...This is great stuff. And just because I have a different view doesn't mean I'm right. I could be enchanted!"

I just feel like singing:

Row Row Row your boat
Gently down the streem
Merily Merily Merily Merily
Life is but a dream :)

Are any of you familiar with Strindberg? He wrote A Dream Play. Here is the link. I was reminded of it when I was reading these notes.

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

Patrice wrote: "Are there any practicing Catholics on here? I'm wondering if proverbs are a part of Catholic education? " A woman of valor, who can find her?" is quoted in the Anselmo story and I'm wondering if t..."

That's an excellent question, Patrice. The phrase is from Proverbs 31:10 of the Old Testament. I know it from the King James Version as "Who can find a virtuous woman?" I see that it is given very important emphasis in the Jewish calendar as "A woman of valor, who can find?" I just checked the old Catholic Douay Version, which reads "Who shall find a valiant woman?" I can't say from experience whether it would be a part of a Catholic education or not, but I can't imagine its not being. Anyone? Here's some interesting information about its use by Jews: http://judaism.about.com/od/shabbatpr...

Laurel

Most modern Catholics with an average education would probably not recognize a verse from Proverbs. I wouldn't. My experience growing up RC and going to Jesuit schools was that the OT doesn't get much emphasis -- NT and Catholic tradition form the basis of religious instruction. As for 16th century Catholics, I couldn't even venture a guess.

Patrice wrote: "Are there any practicing Catholics on here? I'm wondering if proverbs are a part of Catholic education? " A woman of valor, who can find her?" is quoted in the Anselmo story and I'm wondering if t..."

I was raised in fundamentalist Christianity (not Catholic though) and I learned a lot of Bible scripture. I recognized the Proverbs 31 woman analogy.

Patrice wrote: "Just answered my own question. Found an article on it and husband was right. The lords owned the mills and the mills were seen as symbols of oppression.
"

That's a very interesting perspective on the scene! It would seem to me likely that as a minor nobleman himself, DQ might not have been motivated to attack them for that reason, but Cervantes could have been including it as an intentional or subliminal message.

Patrice wrote: "... . the plain man can easily be misled by thinkers who have gone astray or by Sophists who take pleasure in bewildering them...."

Sancho misled by DQ? But not a Sophist who takes pleasure in bewildering him, I think?

Has anyone else been thinking about the similarities and differences that exist in all of the lover's stories that we have come across so far? The idea of love is different in each one, yet they all claim love of something or someone to the be the motivation for their behavior. Religion plays a part in some and not others.
If we just look at the women we see that Zoraida is compelled by her faith and ignores her parental guidance, Marcela is impelled by her need for independence and has no parents to guide her, Dorotea is governed by heartache and shame for her parent's expectations of her, Lucinda is moved by heartbreak and parental devotion to behave in a certain way, etc. There are so many couples that I fear I may begin to confuse them and their motivations! There must be a deeper meaning in all of these relationships or why would they be here at all?

thewanderingjew wrote: "Has anyone else been thinking about the similarities and differences that exist in all of the lover's stories that we have come across so far? The idea of love is different in each one, yet they al..."

You point out something really interesting here: almost all of the female characters, especially the ones you mention, show an independence that the male characters do not. Marcela, Dorotea, Zoraida, even Camila's machinations and Leonela's decision to let her boyfriend come live in the house with her -- all of these stand against male characters who are all bound by and dependent on something. Grisostomo and Cardenio are helplessly in love (to the point of self-destruction), Don Fernando and Anselmo are chasing the notion of the perfect woman, and of course DQ is completely dependent on his notions of chivalry, while Sancho is dependent on DQ.

I'm not sure if that's the point you meant to make, but it's a great observation!

thewanderingjew wrote: "Has anyone else been thinking about the similarities and differences that exist in all of the lover's stories that we have come across so far? The idea of love is different in each one, yet they al..."

Some possible connections between the lover’s stories and our Big Lover DQ:

I found it interesting that the story of Anselmo, the Reckless Curious Gentleman, was interrupted nearly at the end by DQ attacking the wineskins. I think there is a dramatic reason for this -- it's a nice breather from a tense and complicated subplot -- but I wonder if there isn't also a symbolic reason. There is a connection between Don Quixote's madness and Anselmo's "curiosity." Anselmo isn't happy with ordinary everyday fidelity. He wants a wife "worthy of being the model and paragon of all virtuous women." In a similar way, DQ is not happy with his simple but satisfactory life and wants the glorious and passionate life of a knight. His life of knight errantry is in a way a test of his own fidelity -- he is proving to himself that he is the paragon of knighthood.

DQ also interrupts Cardenio's story, after which Cardenio has a fit of madness and can't continue. And so once again we have DQ's madness juxtaposed with another character's psyche. And several pages after witnessing Cardenio's heart-wrenching plight, we see DQ putting on an Amadis-like act of penance for Sancho, so he can go back and report on it to Dulcinea.

And instead of an interruption, the Captive’s story is preceded by DQ’s argument that the man of arms is superior to the man of letters. … and then the Captive tells a very real story about the suffering of the warrior that contrasts with the fantasies of the man of letters, DQ.

Some possible connections?

Thomas wrote: "thewanderingjew wrote: "Has anyone else been thinking about the similarities and differences that exist in all of the lover's stories that we have come across so far? The idea of love is different ..."
Most of the men were foolish, if not mad like DQ. I felt like there were a few cards missing in each of their decks! Sensible men wouldn't ask friends to court their own wives in order to prove their fidelity. More worldly men would not have been fooled by Don Fernando's manipulation.
At the risk of being "yelled at" for this response, One would also hope that strong men would not run off to die after being dumped by a woman. They might mourn but most would get over it, eventually. I also think that rational men would not elect to go to war and take a chance on being killed or captured as with the captive and DQ!
Even all the men we encounter at the inn seem to have a screw loose. They overreact and then over respond without thought for the consequences.
As Thomas said, the women seem stronger, more independent and, I think, even more sensible in most cases.

Patrice wrote: "Someone says that women are more understanding of issues of good and evil."

No fair leaving us hanging here, Patrice! Who said it? And why?

Thomas wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Someone says that women are more understanding of issues of good and evil."

No fair leaving us hanging here, Patrice! Who said it? And why? "

WAS IT SOTOMAYOR? I AM NOT BEING POLITICAL, I AM JUST KIDDING. IT SEEMED LIKE A PERFECT SEGUEWAY TO MY NEXT COMMENT...
Although this was written some time ago and I am not a fan of the Reverend Sun Moon, he has an interesting perspective on this.
http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Talks/su...

Patrice wrote: "Grossman, bottom of page 297

snip...Also, Aristotle again. In the Ethics he says that virtue isn't virtue unless it's been tested. If someone is an alcoholic and resists liquor he is virtuous. If someone doesn't like alcohol and resists alcohol, it's a sign of nothing. This also came to mind as Camila was virtuous until tested. Once the desire was there she gave in and was no longer virtuous.

While I do not believe that someone has to place their hand on a hot stove to know it is hot, their common sense should tell them that, especially as they draw near the heat, often people still feel they must find out for themselves by placing their hand on the coils.
Likewise, I do not believe a truly virtuous woman would have failed the test of temptation as Camila did. She knew the proper way to behave, with or without a test, but once tested, she showed she was not virtuous at all.
Still, in spite of that, I am inclined to agree with Aristotle because most people don't show their true qualities without being tested. "While their virtue may exist", with or without the test, if they don't have to prove it to the world with a test, what is the value of that virtue? It exists only in the imagination.
In that same way, DQ's world exists only in his imagination and he keeps testing himself to prove his own worthiness to himself and the world. Because of his skewed view of reality, his successes and failures are mostly worthless or harmful neither proving nor disproving his honor.
Cervantes must have been making a larger point or he would not have put these tales in the book. The "test" showed that all is not what it seems on the surface.
Maybe I am just confused!

One phrase/proverb that jumped out at me while reading the stories was "That which we gain too easily we esteem too lightly" (not a direct quote, I have to go looking for the exact wording.) It shows up in several stories and I think it ties in with Patrice's/Aristotle's idea that virtue needs to be tested. We tend to second guess things that come too easily. And i think that's one of the main points of Anselmo's story.

Patrice wrote: "but SINCE A WOMAN NATURALLY HAS A QUICKER WIT FOR BOTH GOOD AND EVIL THAN A MAN, though it tends to fail her when she embarks on any kind of deliberate reasoning,, Camila soon found a way to repair the apparently irreparable situation,..."

I have to admit I found this passage to be a little obscure. After thinking about it, I think it's actually a back-handed compliment by the narrator. The word that Grossman translates as "wit" is ingenio, the same word used to describe DQ -- El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quixote -- in the title. To me it has a connotation of design, especially in the context of what Camila has planned for Anselmo. In other words, a woman knows how to design a plan better than a man. There is something logical and argument-based about Anselmo's approach to "proving" Camila's fidelity -- but Camila's approach is much more practical. She doesn't argue about it, she enacts a plan, tells Lotario what to do, and actually withholds information from him so he won't over-think it.

We could probably have long discussions about each one of these independent stories. This is rich material!

thewanderingjew wrote: "While I do not believe that someone has to place their hand on a hot stove to know it is hot, their common sense should tell them that, especially as they draw near the heat, often people still feel they must find out for themselves by placing their hand on the coils. "

There's something about Anselmo's approach that smacks of logical fallacy, the argument from ignorance maybe, which says (if I understand it correctly) that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Anselmo isn't making this fallacy per se, but he seems to be testing the bounds of it. He starts by assuming the opposite of what he hopes to be true, and the only way he can be proven right is by proving himself wrong. In some ways it is more a test of his own faith than Camila's, and he fails the test immediately as soon as he tries to test her.

Patrice wrote: "Question

The wine as blood references in the slaughter of the wineskins episode. Again there's the theme of transformation. But I'm wondering if someone with a Catholic background could interpre..."

You're right the wine becomes the blood of Christ in Holy Communion. Generally when I think of the communion service the ideas of sacrifice and purity come to mind. I honestly don't see that as part of this scene. There could be some criticism of the Church in this scene but if it's there I'm missing it. I'm interested to hear what you come up with.

I don't know if there is hidden Jewish meaning here, but DQ is definitely meshuggenah.

All of the superheroes are fantasy figures, endowed with superpowers.
DQ was not endowed with superpowers. He only thought he was a hero and so he was doomed to failure.

Patrice wrote: "True. DQ is basing his life on fantasy figures too, knight errants. And he isn't real either. Maybe that's the point? If I really put on tights and a cape and went out into the world fighting f..."

It makes sense but you err on the side of reality! DQ errs on the side of insanity! His motivation is immaterial, his logic is still flawed.

Patrice wrote: "But isn't DQ Cervantes alter-ego? I'm reading the account of the battle of Lepanto. That is all true. I love the way he immortalized himself and his exploits through writing, as well as battle. ..."

I see your point, but as a superhero, he may have been a flop since he was captured and superheroes always get their man and eventually save the day! He may have tried hard and he certainly gets A for effort!

Patrice writes: I thought it was interesting that the captive spoke "Christian," not Spanish. Why do you think he said that?

I think he was marking the power base, and therefore the reality base. The captive and other escapees rejoice to find themselves on *Christian soil. The Moors are despised, not because they're foreigners, but because they're other than Christian. Of course, if they were Christian, they'd probably then be despised as foreigners, lol. But seriously, I think the answer to the quoted question has to do with society and societal belonging. One could be a foreign Christian and gain some measure of societal acceptance, but to be other than Christian was to be an outcast.

Another observation I've been making through the book so far is how often people argue that they're not responsible for their actions. Anselmo threatens to court ruin by telling another person of his fears about Camila's virtue if Lotario won't help him, with the strong implication that if he is ruined, it would then be Lotario's fault. Don Quixote, after whacking Sancho with his lance and knocking him down, says that "first impulses are not in the hands of men" (p.256). How different that is from today's mores, that stress individual responsibility. And the tender, pitiable sighs and outbursts of tears would more likely be seen today as signs of an anxiety disorder than of anything else.

On yet another note, a particularly hilarious scene for me in this section was the one between Don Quixote and Dorotea: I won't listen to you until you get up (tugging at her to rise). I won't get up until you promise to do what I ask (struggling to stay kneeling).

Thanks very much, Patrice.

I haven't read Aristotle or very much Plato, but I do see the dichotomy in the book that you point out in your post.