Classics and the Western Canon discussion

This week we take a full look at Book 1, and allow some time for those in need to catch up.

Book One was published in 1605 and stood alone for ten years, so it is apparent that Cervantes intended it to stand on its own as a text.

What are peoples' views of what Cervantes was trying to accomplish with the book, and how well did he succeed?

I think we are still trying to figure out exactly what he was trying to accomplish. Since there are no living witnesses, it is a bit difficult!
Did he write the book, simply to poke fun at chivalry? Is it a book crying out for religious and philosophical interpretations? Are there underlying hidden messages? We are batting this about with each other.
By the way, nice to see you back again. Stay with us.

(Preface: I have caught up with you all, just in time. The one-week reflection period is ideal for me: although a lot of thoughts have occurred to me while reading the first part of DQ, I'd rather look at it - and write about it - as a whole, in whole context.)

Everyman asked what our thoughts were about Cervantes' accomplishment(s) with DQ. Let's start here then.

...oops, right away we bump into a very intriguing and quite easily the key part of the whole text: the Author's Preface. Let's try to answer the "accomplishment" question from this point of view.

"...if I mistake not, this book of yours (...) is, from beginning to end, an attack upon the books of chivalry."

This sentence of Cervantes' so-called (advise-giving) friend can be (is) controversial of course. As - no doubt - it can be interpreted as Cervantes' intention with the book, but again: in the context of this explicitly ironic and distance-keeping preface why exactly this sentence should be taken seriously? Further more: the whole book ("novel") seems to deny this statement.

On the other hand, the idea, that DQ is merely an attack on the books of chivalry (quasi), definitely made a huge impact on the reception/reading history of it. The Preface pulls the "novel" itself into its own present tense, forces its time onto the "novel", forces its "truth" onto the "novel's" truth. (Along the same lines with Derrida's description of a Preface in Dissemination.)

Ortega y Gasset also explains the special "novel" status of DQ with a similar time- and context-change (that is, at the same time, a breaking with the epic story telling) in his famous "Meditations on Quixote": DQ, the "novel", is actually the Past pulled into the Present, a still-epic book of chivalry put into another context. In other words, the DQ itself is a Preface to other books of chivalry, and after reading Cervantes' "novel" we get to know what a book of chivalry is, so we (almost) do not even need to read them.

However, there is a very intriguing sentence about Sancho towards the end of the Preface:

"I have no desire to magnify the service I render thee in making thee acquainted with so renowed and honoured a knight, but I do desire thy thanks for the acquaintance thou wilt make with the famous Sancho Panza,..."

First of all it clearly goes against the canon: books of chivalry usually did not pay too much attention to squires - unlike Cervantes. But more importantly (and back to the achievments of DQ) this "desire thy thanks" definitely offers the interpretation of DQ as the "novel" (=story) of Sancho Panza. Right - but what kind of story then? Ortega y Gasset gives us some hints again: Sancho's job is to make (almost) all adventures impossible. The adventures themselves break into the "real world", the adventures are poetic, on the other hand Sancho is the embodiment of reality (=anti-poetic picture of reality). Now - the point is that the protagonist, Don Quijote's intent to change the reality (of his time) is the most (only?) succesful in Sancho Panza's character - just think: in this sense the critical (realistic) perspective is carried out by the narrator while Sancho Panza goes (runs, jumps, escapes) back and forth between the perspectives of reality and fiction ("miracles").

We can go on and on, just from the Preface itself: what is the real preface and what is the real text in DQ (and around DQ)? Starting with, the chivalry books that DQ read, can be interpreted as prefaces to his own story, to his own chivalry life. Then, the first chapters of DQ can be read as a foreword to the often mentioned Benengeli-variation. And of course, the whole first part of DQ can easily be taken as a long introduction (preamble) to the second part (which was written years - long years - later). Or vice versa: the books of chivalry (that DQ read) are the prefaces to Cervantes' "novel"... It depends how we want to define the word "pre-face": it can be "pre" - to give the readers some kind of pre-meditated ideas about the text they will meet soon, or it also can be a weird phenomenon: a "pre"face that actually a post-face as it already knows everything about the text that is still to be read by us...

Kinga wrote: "(Preface: I have caught up with you all, just in time. The one-week reflection period is ideal for me: although a lot of thoughts have occurred to me while reading the first part of DQ, I'd rather ..."snip, in this sense the critical (realistic) perspective is carried out by the narrator while Sancho Panza goes (runs, jumps, escapes) back and forth between the perspectives of reality and fiction ("miracles").

Since you use the term miracles in your post, I wonder, do you see a religious message hidden in this novel? If so, what ideas do you think Cervantes was "secretly" trying to impart to his reader? We have been kicking that idea around.

Since you use the term miracles in your post, I wonder, do you see a religious message hidden in this novel? If so, what ideas do you think Cervantes was "secretly" trying to impart to his reader? We have been kicking that idea around.


thewanderingjew: in this sense (as I used the word above) I did not intend to hint at any religious message or meaning. Miracles = (quasi) the opposite of everyday, ordinary events (not necessarily religious). Miracles = full of DQ's imagination vs. reality = full of Sancho's world & imagination.

As for Cervantes' intentions - well, at that time (the time of the Spanish Inquisition, let's not forget) hardly anything could surface without religious connotations.

But I am afraid, only Cervantes could tell us his real intentions (ironia not involved) - if he had any other than making some money by writing something that he can "sell" (which - if you ask me - is the case about the birth of DQ). The reception/reading/interpretation of the book in the later centuries - well, that is a totally different story (calls for hermeneutics), as we all know (from Shakespeare, if nothing else).

But I am planning to write more comments on DQ later as my time and thoughts let me do so - and no doubt I won't be able to avoid (because of the nature of the area in which DQ was born) the religious issues you all talked about (trying to catch up with the comments as well, I promise).

Kinga wrote: "(Preface: I have caught up with you all, just in time. The one-week reflection period is ideal for me: although a lot of thoughts have occurred to me while reading the first part of DQ, I'd rather ..."

Kinga! You dazzle me. And that's only the preface. More!

Kinga wrote: But I am afraid, only Cervantes could tell us his real intentions (ironia not involved) - if he had any other than making some money by writing something that he can "sell" (which - if you ask me - is the case about the birth of DQ). The reception/reading/interpretation of the book in the later centuries - well, that is a totally different story (calls for hermeneutics), as we all know (from Shakespeare, if nothing else).

But I am planning to write more comments on DQ later as my time and thoughts let me do so - and no doubt I won't be able to avoid (because of the nature of the area in which DQ was born) the religious issues you all talked about (trying to catch up with the comments as well, I promise).

Yes. My view is that Cervantes sat down to earn some money by writing a really good story. He put into the story the past and the present by asking "What if a colorful character were to come along and insert an institution of Spain Past into Spain Present?" Once he got the idea and put quill to parchment, DQ and Pancho took over. All the religious things that appear are there because that is the environment of Spain Past and Spain Present.

My view is that Cervantes sat down to earn some money by writing a really good story.

Laurel: ...and this issue leads us exactly to the question of "genius or not genius". One of the most important features of a really genius work is that it "speaks" (although differently!) to its "receivers" (=readers, listeners, etc.) for centuries and centuries - no matter what the intentions of its original creator (=writer, painter, musician, no religious connotation here) were. To discover these tunes is - in my opinion - one of the most enjoyable small (or not that small) pleasures of life (and if you are lucky it can be your official profession...)

Yeah, we have arrived at the good old Mozart-Salieri (or - staying with DQ - the Cervantes-Avellaneda) dilemma :D

You dazzle me. And that's only the preface. More!

[flushing and giggling:] As a matter of fact I am not planning to go through all the 50+ chapters one by one :D But seriously, I just felt from the beginning on that it was a very peculiar Preface that might let us in into the world of DQ deeper than a usual foreword does...

Looking back over the first book, and thinking about Kinga's comments about the Preface, I become more convinced that DQ is not one book but many. On the surface it's a comic tale told by a Scheherezade who doesn't seem to have a clear direction. Kind of like Rocinante, the book wanders into adventure. But when we start to ask questions like "Who is DQ" and "Who is Sancho" and What do they represent, the richness of the story emerges without revealing any one single meaning.

I don't think the book requires interpretation to be enjoyed or admired, but when you start to ask questions of it, it turns around and questions you. And I think that's pretty cool. That's why it's still alive today. That's what makes it a classic.

And we have some great questioners in the group here. (But I will refrain from calling you Inquisitors.) ;)

Kinga wrote: "My view is that Cervantes sat down to earn some money by writing a really good story.

Laurel: ...and this issue leads us exactly to the question of "genius or not genius". One of the most importa..."

Genius.

Thomas wrote: "Looking back over the first book, and thinking about Kinga's comments about the Preface, I become more convinced that DQ is not one book but many. On the surface it's a comic tale told by a Scheher..."

Wonderful notes, Thomas.

The Inquisitor's Apprentice

Kinga wrote: "Everyman asked what our thoughts were about Cervantes' accomplishment(s) with DQ. Let's start here then...."

An excellent comment, Kinga. Welcome to the discussion!

I often wondered while reading (the first book especially) as to what Cervantes might be trying to tell us the readers about how he felt about his characters.

My instinct and first impressions where that despite the embarrassing and degrading predicaments that Cervantes puts the Don and Sancho in, he regards the "outsiders" (those not with Sancho or the Don) less.

Perhaps this is my interpretation and that brings up an interesting point about art in general. I love knowing or investigating what the "intention" of a work is but the true masterpieces beg the reader or consumer to make their own inferences.

I usually fall into the category of romantic and optimist, so perhaps it says a lot more about me than Cervantes.

Pearce wrote: "I often wondered while reading (the first book especially) as to what Cervantes might be trying to tell us the readers about how he felt about his characters.

My instinct and first impressions whe..."

You pose an interesting problem, what did Cervantes think about his characters? I think that he really believes that those who are depicted as fools are the ones who are truly intelligent since they see the world with imagination, white, black and gray, and are the most creative adjusting to the world around them. I feel he is really mocking those that pretend to be righteous and all knowing and believes that they are truly ignorant and one dimensional trapped in a "box" of their own making which is rigid and maybe even a bit boring, creating situations with no escape and only one way to view them. Cervantes less sane characters have curves while the more sane ones are all straight lines.

twj wrote: "You pose an interesting problem, what did Cervantes think about his characters? I think that he really believes that those who are depicted as fools are the ones who are truly intelligent since they see the world with imagination, white, black and gray, and are the most creative adjusting to the world around them...."

Perhaps also because, like Shakespeare's Fools, they are able to get away with saying unpleasant truths that the more powerful would not accept being told by anybody else.

One question has been bothering me throughout Book 1.

Of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, is DQ the more successful individual because he is able to create a world which doesn't exist but in which he finds happiness and fulfillment, or is SP the more successful individual because he is able to see the world as it is (at least most of the time) even though he isn't as happy living in it?

(BTW, I don't like the term "most successful" in that question, but I couldn't find a better one. Happiness doesn't cut it, except in the sense that Aristotle uses the term. If you want to use a different term in responding to the thought, feel free and go for it.)

DQ is successful as the archetypal dreamer, and I think this success translates into his power as a character. He is the consummate man of faith. But his faith becomes his weakness when it conflicts with the world as it is. He becomes something like a martyr to knight errantry.

Sancho, on the other hand, has no ideals to defend. He is a materialist, for the most part, and despite his fondness for his master, he seems to be in it for the escudos more than anything. He is practical, and a perfect foil for DQ's idealism.

I don't see either as successful individuals: DQ is hanging by his wrists from a barn window, and Sancho is being tossed in the corral. But they are absolutely successful characters in terms of the drama in which they are embroiled.

Pearce wrote: "I often wondered while reading (the first book especially) as to what Cervantes might be trying to tell us the readers about how he felt about his characters...."

I can only think that Cervantes loved both the Don and Sancho as much as we do. I think much of the tension in the drama comes from our affection for these characters as we see them bumbling into trouble, helpless to do anything about it. The supporting characters and the side stories seem distracting, and even boring at times by comparison.

I was going to say that I think Don and Sancho might be two sides of a coin, maybe kind of like yin and yang; You can't have one without the other. Now I have to try to find book 2.

Thomas wrote: "DQ is successful as the archetypal dreamer, and I think this success translates into his power as a character. He is the consummate man of faith. But his faith becomes his weakness when it conflict..."

Great post, Thomas!

"The Age of the Crusades" (Teaching Company lecture series) is also very good, though I'm not sure that it's terribly helpful at providing context for DQ.

Another Python alum, Terry Gilliam, has been trying to film his version of DQ, but so far the only result has been a documentary about his failed efforts called "Lost in La Mancha."

Patrice wrote: "I want to strongly recommend a DVD I ordered through netflix called "The Crusades". In an effort to better understand the context of DQ I thought I'd try to learn something about chivalry. This i..."

Thanks, Patrice! That should be very helpful. I'll recommend another. It's one I check out from the library often that gives a great feel for the works of Chivalry that DQ was trying to imitate. It's Perceval, a beautiful film by Eric Rohmer. http://www.amazon.com/Perceval-Fabric...

Patrice wrote: "I want to strongly recommend a DVD I ordered through netflix called "The Crusades". .."

Thanks! I have ordered it on Interlibrary Loan (not having Netflix).

Patrice wrote: "TWJ was right about the difficulty of interpreting the references in this book.

I was just watching the Crusades DVD. There was an incident in which the Crusaders were about to attack a castle. The inhabitants released all of their sheep and stole away in the night. The Crusaders attacked the sheep, only to soon realize they'd been duped...."

What a riot!

Patrice wrote:
I was just watching the Crusades DVD. There was an incident in which the Crusaders were about to attack a castle. The inhabitants released all of their sheep and stole away in the night. The Crusaders attacked the sheep, only to soon realize they'd been duped...

That reminds me of Odysseus, too.

Laurele wrote: "Patrice wrote:
I was just watching the Crusades DVD. There was an incident in which the Crusaders were about to attack a castle. The inhabitants released all of their sheep and stole away in the night. The Crusaders attacked the sheep, only to soon realize they'd been duped...

That reminds me of Odysseus, too. "

Definitely -- sheep and stealing away. Perfect!

I guess Monty Python and the Holy Grail comes just about as close as any...

In message 16, Everyman writes: Perhaps also because, like Shakespeare's Fools, they are able to get away with saying unpleasant truths that the more powerful would not accept being told by anybody else.

I like this point. And even if the "more powerful" didn't accept what Don Quixote and Sancho Panza said, who could prosecute a madman, and who would lose his honour by taking issue with a credulous and unlettered servant? Cervantes created the context in which he and his book could play the fool.

Sancho seems to fit the fool paradigm pretty well, but I'm having a hard time fitting DQ into that role. (at least in the Shakespearean sense.) DQ takes himself so seriously, and he demands that others do as well -- it seems that the first requirement for a Shakespearean fool is that he is somewhat marginalized, not seen as relevant by the primary players. DQ is definitely not that.

But DQ still speaks truth from time to time, and as his character develops he becomes more self-aware. His moments of lucidity are more frequent and his observations more poignant. Maybe in a sense DQ is becoming his own fool?

Thomas wrote: "Sancho seems to fit the fool paradigm pretty well, but I'm having a hard time fitting DQ into that role. (at least in the Shakespearean sense.) DQ takes himself so seriously, and he demands that ot..."

DQ seems to me to be more like Lear than like Lear's fool.

Laurele wrote: "DQ seems to me to be more like Lear than like Lear's fool"

Lear is a great comparison.