Classics and the Western Canon discussion

This is our week for finishing up the reading of Book One! However, if you're behind, don't be discouraged -- we have plugged a week into the schedule for discussion of Book 1 as a whole, which will also give a bit of time for those who need it to catch up with the reading.

I need some clarification. I am confused as to why there is a difference in several translations regarding the donkey, the horse, the saddle, the thefts, etc. Why don't they occur at the same time in each translation? Why is it left out of some translations? Why do some events suddenly appear and need footnotes of explanation because they were previously absent?
I can understand a translation being different in language but not in text. Shouldn't all the translations contain the same material or the same tales?
Maybe I am confusing myself because this is one long book! What am I missing?
twj

thewanderingjew wrote: "I need some clarification. I am confused as to why there is a difference in several translations regarding the donkey, the horse, the saddle, the thefts, etc. Why don't they occur at the same time ..."

Some translations purposely condense or leave out parts of the book and make changes seemingly willy-nilly. Raffel, for instance, makes quite a few changes in his translation. I guess because the original is so old and has entered into our mythology people think they can do whatever they want with it to make us poor readers "appreciate" the work. Not good.

I am amazed as I read chapter 48 that the message seems to be the same in Cervantes time as it still is today. "All the news that's fit to print" is whatever sells, not necessarily what is the truth or food for the intellect but rather what satisfies the lowest common denominator of society, in all forms of media and entertainment, because that is where the money is found.

Laurele wrote: "thewanderingjew wrote: "I need some clarification. I am confused as to why there is a difference in several translations regarding the donkey, the horse, the saddle, the thefts, etc. Why don't they..."

Hmmm, are we the ignorant readers referred to in chapter 48? Perhaps I was being pompous thinking I was the more literate! Maybe the message in chapter 48 was that the practice of the times as well, was to include whatever you wanted to make the book more or less readable for the masses. I didn't connect the two thoughts until just now.

thewanderingjew wrote: "I need some clarification. I am confused as to why there is a difference in several translations regarding the donkey, the horse, the saddle, the thefts, etc. Why don't they occur at the same time ..."

I got the impression that the inconsistency with the donkey theft was actually a mistake on the part of the original printer or Cervantes himself. It is adressed briefly in the beginning of the next book.

Eliza wrote: "thewanderingjew wrote: "I need some clarification. I am confused as to why there is a difference in several translations regarding the donkey, the horse, the saddle, the thefts, etc. Why don't they..."

Yes, but wasn't there also a discrepancy regarding Rocinante?

I would have to go back and reread again but I do remember that certain events seemed to pop up without warning, like missing horses and donkeys and saddles. For instance, i believe in a footnote, there is an inference that the prisoner stole Rocinante and then suddenly he is back and the horse is returned. Is that just translator choice?

thewanderingjew wrote: "Eliza wrote: "thewanderingjew wrote: "I need some clarification. I am confused as to why there is a difference in several translations regarding the donkey, the horse, the saddle, the thefts, etc. ..."

I don't think I caught that. Huh, must read more carefully.

Or, maybe I misunderstood what I read! There is so much to read!

thewanderingjew wrote: "I need some clarification. I am confused as to why there is a difference in several translations regarding the donkey, the horse, the saddle, the thefts, etc. Why don't they occur at the same time ..."

Grossman's translation has a footnote on p. 174 which says the galley slave steals the donkey. I haven't found the one about Rocinante yet. Apparently the theft of the donkey is not mentioned by Cervantes in the first part but is alluded to in the second part and is supposed to be an oversight as Laurele suggested.
There is also a footnote about it on page 196.

thewanderingjew wrote: "I would have to go back and reread again but I do remember that certain events seemed to pop up without warning, like missing horses and donkeys and saddles. For instance, i believe in a footnote, ..."

I think I might have misunderstood about Rocinante but I don't have the patience to go back and make sure! Too many pages...I still get the feeling that some events just seem to pop up out of nowhere.

thewanderingjew wrote: "Laurele wrote: "thewanderingjew wrote: "I need some clarification. I am confused as to why there is a difference in several translations regarding the donkey, the horse, the saddle, the thefts, etc..."

Are the Canon and the Priest actually discussing censorsihp and is this Cervante's way of mocking it?

thewanderingjew wrote: "I would have to go back and reread again but I do remember that certain events seemed to pop up without warning, like missing horses and donkeys and saddles. For instance, i believe in a footnote, ..."

I thought I remembered Rocinante coming back with the thief rider her and being reinstated.

Laurele wrote: "thewanderingjew wrote: "I would have to go back and reread again but I do remember that certain events seemed to pop up without warning, like missing horses and donkeys and saddles. For instance, i..."

that was what i thought but then i reread it and it said it was the donkey the galley slave was riding. i think i got confused when sancho and dq fell off the horses and rocinante fell over. i am not sure. i just seem to remember dq riding the donkey at one time and sancho walking because rocinante was gone or some such thing. i couldn't find it when i looked. there are so many pages!

thewanderingjew wrote: "I need some clarification. I am confused as to why there is a difference in several translations regarding the donkey, the horse, the saddle, the thefts, etc. Why don't they occur at the same time ..."

Your comment made me think of something. The Bible is the same way, isn't it? With all the translations and inconsistencies. It shows that the intention is not always necessarilly always totally understood by the reader. I don't know the answer to your question but it did make me think.

Dianna wrote: "thewanderingjew wrote: "I need some clarification. I am confused as to why there is a difference in several translations regarding the donkey, the horse, the saddle, the thefts, etc. Why don't they..."

Yes, and the Bible is supposed to have several authors too! You made me think!

Hmmmm.....very interesting! So maybe more than one person wrote it as a compilation? To prove a point? Yes, that is very interesting!

In chapter 50, in the first paragraph, Cervantes is mocking the chivalric novels as DQ rails against the canon's explanation of them, in which he berates the fact that some readers believe them to be pure fact rather than a mixture of fact and fiction.
Today, the same problem exists. Historic novels are often believed to be fact, by those who read them, rather than fiction that is loosely based on facts. Since it is their only source of information, they are often unaware that only certain parts of the novel are true. The author can actually have a tremendous effect on the ideas that people generate for themselves, about certain subjects, based on the falsehoods in their novels which are loosely based on reality. Some books can even change the way some people think and choose to live. Hmmm, modern day DQ's often blame their reactions and behavior on various forms of media. The negative effects of some forms of media have been used in court, as a defense!

Patrice wrote: "And don't forget movies! Most people "know" history through film."

And don't they abuse "poetic license" too often too?

thewanderingjew wrote: "I need some clarification. I am confused as to why there is a difference in several translations regarding the donkey, the horse, the saddle, the thefts, etc. Why don't they occur at the same time ..."

There has to be a doctoral dissertation out there somewhere that discusses the reasons for all the discrepancies. There were several printings and several editions of DQ within just the first few years after Cervantes finished it. Apparently there were even pirated editions. It's astounding to think of a book this long being hand-set for a pirated edition. If you've ever played around with moveable type, you know what a daunting task this must have been. With the popularity of the book and the money to be made, I'm sure there was lots of opportunity for error.

Thomas wrote: "thewanderingjew wrote: "I need some clarification. I am confused as to why there is a difference in several translations regarding the donkey, the horse, the saddle, the thefts, etc. Why don't they..."

You know, you have a good point. I wasn't really thinking about the fact that the technology for producing the book was so limited. That certainly could account for the discrepancies but also, if there is a possibility that there was more than one author, that would also account for some changes.
Oh, by the way, I am of the generation that did take printing, with movable type, when I was in Junior High School. I think we were required to take a shop and I took that one! Boy, was it messy.

Dianna wrote: "The Bible is the same way, isn't it? With all the translations and inconsistencies. It shows that the intention is not always necessarilly always totally understood by the reader. "

Complication by way of translation seems to almost be a narrative device. At first I thought this was just Cervantes' way of framing the story: he poses as a compositor or compiler of the papers that he has discovered -- papers which he must first have translated from Arabic by a Moor. So the original Spanish history must be translated back into Spanish from Arabic by a Moor -- and for some reason at this point I think about Zoraida's warning about not trusting a Moor to read her letters, and how that warning could not be read without it first being translated.

So now I wonder if it isn't more than just a way of framing the tale -- maybe it is Cervantes' intention to make us doubt or question the narrative? Maybe this is Cervantes having a little fun with the reader? (Keeping in mind that before Don Quixote became the Sorrowful Knight he was like us, just a reader.)

Patrice wrote: "OK, I understand that chivalry is different from christianity. It's violent and vengeful. But the scene where Marutones asks for DQ hand, knowing he would offer it, and then strings him up, arms o..."
I found the scene horrifyingly cruel as well. I never made the connection you did, though. I see the relationship to the Crucifixion, clearly now. Thanks.

Patrice wrote: "OK, I understand that chivalry is different from christianity. It's violent and vengeful. But the scene where Marutones asks for DQ hand, knowing he would offer it, and then strings him up, arms o..."

That is certainly the image that it evokes. The last sentence in the chapter reminded me a little of Tantalus as well: "... just as those subjected to the torture of the strappado, whose feet touch, almost touch, the ground, increase their own torment by attempting to extend themselves to the fullest, deceived in the hope that with just a little more stretching they will reach the ground."

Tantalus in reverse, I guess. But it seems to speak directly to DQ's idealism, which is a kind of torture that he doesn't recognize as such and fully accepts.

On the other hand, when he gets down he challenges the four travelers and he "rages and fumes with indignation and fury" when they ignore him, and the only reason he doesn't attack them is because he can't take on a new adventure until he gets Princess Micomicona sorted out.

Patrice wrote: "OK, I understand that chivalry is different from christianity. It's violent and vengeful. But the scene where Marutones asks for DQ hand, knowing he would offer it, and then strings him up, arms o..."

Here's one interpretation of our Don:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives...

Laurel

Laurele wrote: "Patrice wrote: "OK, I understand that chivalry is different from christianity. It's violent and vengeful. But the scene where Marutones asks for DQ hand, knowing he would offer it, and then string..."

Wow! Thanks for that reference!

I only have about 60 pages left and I am losing interest for some reason. I loved it at first but the rediculousness is just getting to be too much for me. Does anyone else feel that way or am I the only one?

Dianna wrote: "I only have about 60 pages left and I am losing interest for some reason. I loved it at first but the rediculousness is just getting to be too much for me. Does anyone else feel that way or am I ..."

I was beginning to feel that way too. I am trying to figure out how they will fill another 500 pages with this stuff. Maybe Part 2 will mix it up a bit. I am up to the prologue!
I am glad I am not alone in feeling a bit "overtired" with the book. We do have a week off, don't we?

I took my week off last week! Now I feel obligated to read and I hate that.

Fascinating article, Laurele! Thanks for that. DQ does appear to be a "holy fool," but I'm not quite sure that Christ is what makes him holy. I still think that's a bit of a stretch. In some ways, DQ is about as pagan as they come, and his devotion is more destructive than anything.

Thomas wrote: "Fascinating article, Laurele! Thanks for that. DQ does appear to be a "holy fool," but I'm not quite sure that Christ is what makes him holy. I still think that's a bit of a stretch. In some ways, ..."

Here's what I've been thinking as I have been reading DQ: It seems to me that Cervantes set out to tell a good story, and he ended up creating a little world in which he put his own world, his thoughts and background, and the thoughts an background of those around him. As we read this new little world we see in it our thoughts and background and make up our own little worlds. Cervantes created a mythology in which we see ourselves. Something like that. Maybe the rest of you can tell me what I'm talking about, because I'm not sure.

What I admire about DQ so far is how finely it is layered. On the surface it is a parody of chivalric literature and just pure comic entertainment; taken a little deeper, it is a satirical treatment of idealism in general. Surely Christianity is a type of idealism, so this interpretation is certainly feasible. (But I think I could give you a Buddhist interpretation that could work just as well.)

The historical context is interesting though, if the story is taken as a critique of militant Christianity, or the crusades-era church. I think this is what Patrice is asking about. In this case the book is really cynical about Christianity, isn't it? DQ as a Christ-figure is irrational, delusional, self-destructive, and often just ridiculous. I would be more comfortable with this as a commentary on the Church, but it seems that there are parallels being drawn between DQ and Jesus himself.

It also seems possible that the biblical allusions we are finding are not meant symbolically -- they could be literary devices that were just part of what Cervantes was making fun of in the chivalric lit.

Anyway, good thoughts all!

There is a scripture in the Bible that says God chose foolish things to confound the wise.

1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world. Men whom the world would call foolish, with a gospel that it called foolishness; yet these confounded the wise and upturned the world's philosophies. (People's New Testament)

I don't know if this book is a parody of the Church of the time or of Christianity in general. If it is a parody of the Church, I can relate to what he is trying to say. If, however, he is saying that belief in Christ is foolish, I can't go for that.

Certainly, there are things in the Bible that are contradictory and difficult to understand. That doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater... I'm starting to think that Cervantes is making a mockery of Christ and maybe that is why I am losing interest in the book. I can deal with him mocking the church but if he is mocking Christ then I will just again say I don't agree with him/them (whoever wrote Don Quixote...).

Dianna wrote: "There is a scripture in the Bible that says God chose foolish things to confound the wise.

1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world. Men whom the world would call f..."

Good verse connection, Dianna. I don't think Cervantes is mocking Christ. It was quite common during the Middle Ages for writers to point out things that they saw as being amiss about the Roman church. Dante does this in The Divine Comedy and even puts some church leaders, including popes, in Hell. He was mocking the inconsistencies of the church, but he would never mock Christ.

Patrice wrote: "WOW! GOOD THOUGHTS INDEED!
When you say that he is being cynical about "Christianity" I think I see what you're saying but in my heart I just can't feel it. In my class last year there was a devout Catholic who kept quiet throughout the reading. Then, finally, she piped up and said "this is a criticism of the church, plain and simple. Anyone who has been raised in the church would see that". since i have not been raised in the church, I think I'm missing that. I take DQ as a more general and universal symbol of a man who is ruled by his ideals. Ideals that are not practical. When I see him as a Christ figure, I see him as a symbol of suffering man, not literally Christ. I know he does foolish things but everyone does.

I think this speaks to the concept, "I can say anything I want to about my mother, but don't you dare!" Not being a Christian, I may not take as much umbrage to the comments that mock Christ, but I do understand how a Christian might not want it interpreted that way or might be upset with the inference against the church.
Also, I do not view Christ in the negative way that scholars think Cervantes does. I viewed Christ as a righteous man, with a pure heart, who was wronged. I do not think his goodness was insanity.
I believe that DQ may be a righteous man, as well, with good intentions, but he is out of his mind and his reasoning is warped. Since I never, ever got that feeling about Christ's ideas, I believe the comparisons may be more tongue in cheek.

Patrice wrote: "I just found an interesting article on line. the Cambridge Companion to Cervantes has an article by Anthony J. Cascardi in which he discusses the influence of In Praise of Folly on Cervantes. He ..."
I couldn't find your Cambridge Companion article unless this is the one. I couldn't find the wikipedia either.
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805216/...
go to page 6-15

Whoops, I lied, I found it with In Praise, not The praise for some reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_prais......

Patrice wrote: "that quote from Corinthians seems to apply so well.

Thank you.

I'm getting more curious about "In Praise of Folly". Erasmus, I believe was a big influence on Cervantes. Erasmus, I think, was a ..."

Beautiful, Patrice. The real fools are those who think they are wise and are not. The fools whom Paul commends are those who know that they do not know it all. "Even a fool is considered wise when he keeps his mouth shut." (my paraphrase of Proverbs 17:28)

Patrice wrote: "Dianna, it never occurred to me that he would mock Christ!"

If (and this is a big IF) Cervantes means DQ to represent a "holy fool," a follower of Christ, or a knight of the Church, then I think this is the inescapable conclusion. Just to be clear, I don't think this is what he is doing, and this conclusion is one reason why I have resisted this line of thought from the start. DQ does truly give himself up to something, in the most uncompromising, heart-felt and honest way -- but I really don't think it is Christ or Christianity that he is giving himself up to.

But I'm not sure now what to think of all the biblical allusions...

Perhaps the allusions are meant to illustrate the different outcomes of being good and the different interpretations of goodness, as well. When one is being "good" for the wrong reasons, or "bad" for the right ones, unexpected or undesirable results often occur.
DQ's goodness is attributed to madness and his reasoning for being good is faulty often bringing about disastrous results. If we compare it to the belief in Christ's goodness which is attributed to a pure heart and a sane mind, and compare the results of his efforts, we find DQ's adventures laughable but Christ's that much more sacred.
Maybe if there are comparisons to Christ, they are there not to ridicule but to point out the difference between the two. One is driven by foolishness and becomes a comically heroic" figure while the other is self-sacrificing and truly heroic.
Goodness for its own sake, which serves the need of the good-deed doer, is not the same as goodness for the sake of others by the good-deed doer.
I am not a Christian, so I may be totally off base here, but I don't feel certain that Cervantes is mocking Christianity or religion but rather I feel that he might be questioning the purpose and motives of "man" who follows religion.

thewanderingjew wrote: "Goodness for its own sake, which serves the need of the good-deed doer, is not the same as goodness for the sake of others by the good-deed doer.
I am not a Christian, so I may be totally off base here,"

Not off base at all, I think. Actually right on base. DQ is completely wrapped up in his thing, and it is his thing and no one else's. Jesus lived for others, totally and completely. Excellent point! Maybe we should be looking for differences rather than similarities -- this seems a lot more fruitful to me. Thanks TWJ -- that was very helpful.

Thomas wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Dianna, it never occurred to me that he would mock Christ!"

If (and this is a big IF) Cervantes means DQ to represent a "holy fool," a follower of Christ, or a knight of the Chur..."

Here is another one from the part where he is talking about comedies:

"For what greater absurdity can be in such a subject, than to see a child come out in the first scene of the first act in his swadling clouts, and issue in the second already grown a man, yea, a bearded man?"

This is pretty much what happens in the story of Jesus, except for one small episode of him in the temple when he was a young boy. My mental constructs are being challenged.

Dianna wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Dianna, it never occurred to me that he would mock Christ!"

If (and this is a big IF) Cervantes means DQ to represent a "holy fool," a follower of Christ, or a kni..."

Hello. Too far behind to catch up in DQ, I've been lurking this interesting discussion since being invited to the group by Everyman. I'll share my introduction elsewhere but wanted to jump in with a small comment on Dianna's citation here.

While all the comparisons to Christ certainly seem applicable to me, there is a secular reference here to the theater of Cervantes' (and Shakespeare's) day. The classical norm called for unity of time and place. In short, a play was supposed to cover only one day and one location. Of course Shakespeare blew that convention out of the water!

From the little I know of DQ and Cervantes, he is playing around with a similar thing to Shakespeare: stretching formal definitions way beyond what anyone else had done ("inventing" the novel?) and also challenging us to consider the a fun house mirror's distinction between art and nature ("The world's a stage. And all the men and women merely players.")

Thanks for indulging me this "drive-by" post. I'm looking forward to seeing what the next book will be.

Zeke

I've already messed up! Here is the quote I was citing:

"For what greater absurdity can be in such a subject, than to see a child come out in the first scene of the first act in his swadling clouts, and issue in the second already grown a man, yea, a bearded man?"

Zeke wrote: "I've already messed up! Here is the quote I was citing:

"For what greater absurdity can be in such a subject, than to see a child come out in the first scene of the first act in his swadling clout..."

Welcome, you didn't mess up, you just got to cite another quote!

The arguments about the value of chivalric novels could be transposed, with little change, into mid-20th-century polemics about comic books, or current ones about movies and TV. Some conversations never cease to be necessary. Is that, at least in part, because we tend not to discover that those conversations have been had in just about every generation? *I'd say so.

Wow, I'm halfway through the book! Sigh, only halfway through.

The first paragraph, or the second?