The Prolog

[bdNM]

"Idle reader: I don't have to swear any oaths to persuade you that I should like this book, since it is the son of my brain, to be the most beautiful, elegant and intelligent book imaginable.  But I couldn't go against the order of nature, according to which like gives birth to life."  So Cervantes begins his epic telling of the adventures of Don Quixote -- the prolog is meant to satirize such prologs as apparently appeared before literary tomes of Cervantes' experience. 

I find this opening great -- here is the author, Cervantes, who has to have realized that he had a great book here, playing down its greatness by suggesting that, with a poor brain like his, this was the best he could do.  I don't imagine that he quite had the sense, as perhaps Dante did with his Comedy that he had a work that would last.  Of course, Dante could be, at times, quite full of himself -- he realized Pride was the deadly sin he had to look out for.  Is Cervantes humble, or just putting on this pose?   At any rate, it's a great opening for a work considered the greatest of Spanish literature, and one of the great novels of all time. 

One of the things that has caught me as I've been reading -- the quality of awareness (even if deprecating as here) of narrative in this work.  We have Cervantes playing with the idea of bringing authorities to bear, or not finding authorities, or suggesting that one could make stuff up and just attribute your nostrums to some authority.  Puts the whole matter of authority and the nature of narrative up to wonder and discussion. 

As I read -- in Rutherford's translation -- the various poems at the end of the prolog, I found them a bit tough to take.  I found that, as I listened to them in Grossman's translation, they were much easier to take, and even fun. 

So what do you guys think? 

[Peppermill]

---

bdNM wrote:

"Idle reader: I don't have to swear any oaths to persuade you that I should like this book, since it is the son of my brain, to be the most beautiful, elegant and intelligent book imaginable.  But I couldn't go against the order of nature, according to which like gives birth to life."  So Cervantes begins his epic telling of the adventures of Don Quixote -- the prolog is meant to satirize such prologs as apparently appeared before literary tomes of Cervantes' experience. 

I find this opening great -- here is the author, Cervantes, who has to have realized that he had a great book here, playing down its greatness by suggesting that, with a poor brain like his, this was the best he could do.  I don't imagine that he quite had the sense, as perhaps Dante did with his Comedy that he had a work that would last.  Of course, Dante could be, at times, quite full of himself -- he realized Pride was the deadly sin he had to look out for.  Is Cervantes humble, or just putting on this pose?   At any rate, it's a great opening for a work considered the greatest of Spanish literature, and one of the great novels of all time. 

One of the things that has caught me as I've been reading -- the quality of awareness (even if deprecating as here) of narrative in this work.  We have Cervantes playing with the idea of bringing authorities to bear, or not finding authorities, or suggesting that one could make stuff up and just attribute your nostrums to some authority.  Puts the whole matter of authority and the nature of narrative up to wonder and discussion. 

As I read -- in Rutherford's translation -- the various poems at the end of the prolog, I found them a bit tough to take.  I found that, as I listened to them in Grossman's translation, they were much easier to take, and even fun. 

So what do you guys think? 

---

One of several things that used to put me off about Don Quixote was all the big ego stuff.  Now I find it charming, even delightful, perhaps because, at this stage in my life, it almost feels like just another one of those foibles that Cervantes is so good at holding up to ridicule.

My Smollet translation includes an article, seemingly by Smollet, on Cervantes's life.  He seems to have had enough run-ins with authorities by the time he wrote Don Quixote to have had considerable experience at both being used by and using them.  That is probably what shows in these passages!

(I will sign in, Bernard, just not tonite.  Thanks for getting us started on this adventure.)  Pepper

P.S.  I was okay listening to the poems -- I haven't really tried reading them.  I haven't really thought about their purpose in the story-telling.

[bdNM]

---

Peppermill wrote:

---

bdNM wrote:

"Idle reader: I don't have to swear any oaths to persuade you that I should like this book, since it is the son of my brain, to be the most beautiful, elegant and intelligent book imaginable.  But I couldn't go against the order of nature, according to which like gives birth to life."  So Cervantes begins his epic telling of the adventures of Don Quixote -- the prolog is meant to satirize such prologs as apparently appeared before literary tomes of Cervantes' experience. 

I find this opening great -- here is the author, Cervantes, who has to have realized that he had a great book here, playing down its greatness by suggesting that, with a poor brain like his, this was the best he could do.  I don't imagine that he quite had the sense, as perhaps Dante did with his Comedy that he had a work that would last.  Of course, Dante could be, at times, quite full of himself -- he realized Pride was the deadly sin he had to look out for.  Is Cervantes humble, or just putting on this pose?   At any rate, it's a great opening for a work considered the greatest of Spanish literature, and one of the great novels of all time. 

One of the things that has caught me as I've been reading -- the quality of awareness (even if deprecating as here) of narrative in this work.  We have Cervantes playing with the idea of bringing authorities to bear, or not finding authorities, or suggesting that one could make stuff up and just attribute your nostrums to some authority.  Puts the whole matter of authority and the nature of narrative up to wonder and discussion. 

As I read -- in Rutherford's translation -- the various poems at the end of the prolog, I found them a bit tough to take.  I found that, as I listened to them in Grossman's translation, they were much easier to take, and even fun. 

So what do you guys think? 

---

One of several things that used to put me off about Don Quixote was all the big ego stuff.  Now I find it charming, even delightful, perhaps because, at this stage in my life, it almost feels like just another one of those foibles that Cervantes is so good at holding up to ridicule.

My Smollet translation includes an article, seemingly by Smollet, on Cervantes's life.  He seems to have had enough run-ins with authorities by the time he wrote Don Quixote to have had considerable experience at both being used by and using them.  That is probably what shows in these passages!

(I will sign in, Bernard, just not tonite.  Thanks for getting us started on this adventure.)  Pepper

P.S.  I was okay listening to the poems -- I haven't really tried reading them.  I haven't really thought about their purpose in the story-telling.

---

Smollett, of course, as  writer of picaresque novels, is very much a follower of the tradition of Cervantes.

On the poems, I enjoyed them as I listened to them, but did think that the great number of them seemed rather an excess. 

[Choisya]

I think that from the Preface to the end of Part I, Cervantes is being ironic, that not only the characters in the book are 'quixotic' but so, implicitly, is the reader and the author. Cervantes has set up a sophisticated game of mirrors; the stories are like Zen Buddhist riddles (koans) which are designed to simultaneously disorientate and enlighten the seeker after wisdom.   Even the first words 'Idle reader' are laden with irony as they suppose that we, reading this book, have become idle and 'strangely besotted' with certain books (or book clubs) just like Don Quixote. If the first words are deceiving, what are we to expect of the rest?

Given the ups and downs of Cervantes life,  he may well, like Dante, have been aware of his own hubris so he may have been self-deprecating when he wrote that 'my barren and unpolished understanding can produce nothing but what is very dull, very impertinent and extravagant beyond imagination' or it could be another sleight of hand meant to disorientate us.

(I am reading the Wordsworth edition, which uses the Motteux translation 'noted for its liveliness and its fidelity to the spirit - not always the letter - of Cervantes' Spanish. Its relative proximity in time to the original may be partially accountable for its possession of a "savour" that most later versions lack.' There are no poems at the end of my Preface. )

bdNM wrote:

---

Peppermill wrote:

---

bdNM wrote:

"Idle reader: I don't have to swear any oaths to persuade you that I should like this book, since it is the son of my brain, to be the most beautiful, elegant and intelligent book imaginable.  But I couldn't go against the order of nature, according to which like gives birth to life."  So Cervantes begins his epic telling of the adventures of Don Quixote -- the prolog is meant to satirize such prologs as apparently appeared before literary tomes of Cervantes' experience. 

I find this opening great -- here is the author, Cervantes, who has to have realized that he had a great book here, playing down its greatness by suggesting that, with a poor brain like his, this was the best he could do.  I don't imagine that he quite had the sense, as perhaps Dante did with his Comedy that he had a work that would last.  Of course, Dante could be, at times, quite full of himself -- he realized Pride was the deadly sin he had to look out for.  Is Cervantes humble, or just putting on this pose?   At any rate, it's a great opening for a work considered the greatest of Spanish literature, and one of the great novels of all time. 

One of the things that has caught me as I've been reading -- the quality of awareness (even if deprecating as here) of narrative in this work.  We have Cervantes playing with the idea of bringing authorities to bear, or not finding authorities, or suggesting that one could make stuff up and just attribute your nostrums to some authority.  Puts the whole matter of authority and the nature of narrative up to wonder and discussion. 

As I read -- in Rutherford's translation -- the various poems at the end of the prolog, I found them a bit tough to take.  I found that, as I listened to them in Grossman's translation, they were much easier to take, and even fun. 

So what do you guys think? 

---

One of several things that used to put me off about Don Quixote was all the big ego stuff.  Now I find it charming, even delightful, perhaps because, at this stage in my life, it almost feels like just another one of those foibles that Cervantes is so good at holding up to ridicule.

My Smollet translation includes an article, seemingly by Smollet, on Cervantes's life.  He seems to have had enough run-ins with authorities by the time he wrote Don Quixote to have had considerable experience at both being used by and using them.  That is probably what shows in these passages!

(I will sign in, Bernard, just not tonite.  Thanks for getting us started on this adventure.)  Pepper

P.S.  I was okay listening to the poems -- I haven't really tried reading them.  I haven't really thought about their purpose in the story-telling.

---

Smollett, of course, as  writer of picaresque novels, is very much a follower of the tradition of Cervantes.

On the poems, I enjoyed them as I listened to them, but did think that the great number of them seemed rather an excess. 

---

[rbehr]

Regarding the poems and sonnets in the prolog.  Maybe they were a spoof on the literature of the day or a setup for the tone of the book??  Here is a quote from earlier in the prolog.

"My wish would be simply to present it to thee plain and unadorned,without any embellishment of preface or uncountable muster of customary sonnets, epigrams, and eulogies, such as are commonly put at the beginning of books."

---

bdNM wrote:

"Idle reader: I don't have to swear any oaths to persuade you that I should like this book, since it is the son of my brain, to be the most beautiful, elegant and intelligent book imaginable.  But I couldn't go against the order of nature, according to which like gives birth to life."  So Cervantes begins his epic telling of the adventures of Don Quixote -- the prolog is meant to satirize such prologs as apparently appeared before literary tomes of Cervantes' experience. 

I find this opening great -- here is the author, Cervantes, who has to have realized that he had a great book here, playing down its greatness by suggesting that, with a poor brain like his, this was the best he could do.  I don't imagine that he quite had the sense, as perhaps Dante did with his Comedy that he had a work that would last.  Of course, Dante could be, at times, quite full of himself -- he realized Pride was the deadly sin he had to look out for.  Is Cervantes humble, or just putting on this pose?   At any rate, it's a great opening for a work considered the greatest of Spanish literature, and one of the great novels of all time. 

One of the things that has caught me as I've been reading -- the quality of awareness (even if deprecating as here) of narrative in this work.  We have Cervantes playing with the idea of bringing authorities to bear, or not finding authorities, or suggesting that one could make stuff up and just attribute your nostrums to some authority.  Puts the whole matter of authority and the nature of narrative up to wonder and discussion. 

As I read -- in Rutherford's translation -- the various poems at the end of the prolog, I found them a bit tough to take.  I found that, as I listened to them in Grossman's translation, they were much easier to take, and even fun. 

So what do you guys think? 

---

[thewanderingjew]

I hate to say this, but after reading DQ, I have come to the conclusion that if you don't read every word of the poems/songs, you don't miss much. They tend to drag and added little substance for me. I did plow through them. If I read it again, I would skim them at most. Maybe others will enjoy them. I read the Grossman translation. I bought the Raffel first but the print was too small for my old eyes.

[bdNM]

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

I hate to say this, but after reading DQ, I have come to the conclusion that if you don't read every word of the poems/songs, you don't miss much. They tend to drag and added little substance for me. I did plow through them. If I read it again, I would skim them at most. Maybe others will enjoy them. I read the Grossman translation. I bought the Raffel first but the print was too small for my old eyes.

---

I agree -- I think Cervantes' point was to duplicate the sort of stuff that appeared as prolog in other works, and he's making fun of them.  I don't think they add much to the sense of the work, and some translators, as Choisya noted, don't even include them.

[Choisya]

Another spoof!  All is not what it seems!

---

bdNM wrote:

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

I hate to say this, but after reading DQ, I have come to the conclusion that if you don't read every word of the poems/songs, you don't miss much. They tend to drag and added little substance for me. I did plow through them. If I read it again, I would skim them at most. Maybe others will enjoy them. I read the Grossman translation. I bought the Raffel first but the print was too small for my old eyes.

---

I agree -- I think Cervantes' point was to duplicate the sort of stuff that appeared as prolog in other works, and he's making fun of them.  I don't think they add much to the sense of the work, and some translators, as Choisya noted, don't even include them.

---

[dulcinea3]

Without having time to actually read the work itself, I have managed to pull together: my class notes, my theme papers, a critical study of the novel (Aproximacion al Quijote, by Martin de Riquer, and the novel itself, heavily annotated by de Riquer.

Do you have the dedication to the Duque de Bejar?  This is interesting; it is not just an ordinary dedication.  First of all, Cervantes perhaps was hoping to obtain the patronage of the Duke, but the Duke never responded or took any notice.  But here is where Cervantes plunged right into his satire of chivalric novels.  Passages of the dedication are plagiarized from a dedication in Poesias de Garcilaso, by Fernando de Herrera to the Marques de Ayamonte.  De Riquer comments that it is surprising to find such unoriginality at the start of one of the most original novels of all time.  However, there is a precedent: the dedication of Tirante el Blanco (one of the foremost chivalric novels) by Jobanot Martorell to the prince don Fernando de Portugal is a total plagiarization of a dedication of Los doce trabajos de Hercules by don Enrique de Villena.

The Prologue is a criticism of literature of Cervantes' day, and especially of his arch-rival Lope de Vega. Other authors used all kinds of conceits in their books, such as dedications, prologues, references and notes, etc.  They would ask other authors to write poems in praise of them and their book.  Cervantes pretends, in his Prologue, that he has been unable to come up with these things, and laments that readers will not consider him learned as a result, to the extent that he is almost discouraged from publishing his book.  His friend points out that those other things are really not necessary to make the work itself good, but if they are really needed, Cervantes can just make them up.  That way, readers will admire Cervantes and his book.  The point is that Don Quixote, with fake adornments, will still be worth more than other inferior works, with genuine adornments, even though it may be necessary to trick the reader into believing so.

I don't know how it is translated, but Cervantes points out that his not the father (padre) of this novel, but its godfather (padrastro).  I'm not sure if he says so yet, but he is not claiming to be the author.  In fact, he is (allegedly) relating a story that was translated from a manuscript written by an Arab (Cide Hamete Benengeli).  This accomplishes several things.  It distances him from the story, and we are free to judge the story without judging Cervantes.  Also, because the author is an Arab, we are not required to absolutely believe everything (sorry, no PC here!).  This also is part of the chivalric tradition: a knight requires three things - an escudero (sorry, only the Spanish word is coming to me - what do they call Sancho in English?), a woman to idealize and dedicate himself to, and a chronicler.

Cervantes has two main goals: to entertain the reader and make them laugh, and to trash the chivalric novel.  He is rejecting the ideal in favor of the real.  Of course, don Quixote represents the ideal and Sancho represents the real, but during the course of the novel, they will get closer to each other and even change places.

On the poems:  These poems are all 'authored' by characters from chivalric novels.  They are satirical.  The one by Amadis de Gaula refers to a scene where don Quixote imitates a scene that he read in the novel about Amadis.  Perhaps the most interesting is the final one, which is not really a poem, but a conversation between don Quixote's horse Rocinante and Babieca, the horse belonging to el Cid.  This gives the reader a sense of Rocinante as a character with a personality.  Interestingly, don Quixote does not seem to admire el Cid nearly as much as other knights that he has read about.  This is ironic, because el Cid is the only knight among them who was a real knight, so it is an example of how don Quixote is obsessed with the ideal over the real.

BTW, I've seen a couple of references in posts to picaresque literature.  This is not really a picaresque novel.  It is primarily based on chivalric literature, although there are examples of almost every literary genre of Cervantes' day.  Perhaps it is the wandering aspect that is confusing, because picaros wander from place to place, but so do knights errant.

Well, that is the lecture for today!!!  Don't know when I'll find time for another (I took today off because I overslept).

[bdNM]

---

dulcinea3 wrote:

Without having time to actually read the work itself, I have managed to pull together: my class notes, my theme papers, a critical study of the novel (Aproximacion al Quijote, by Martin de Riquer, and the novel itself, heavily annotated by de Riquer.

Do you have the dedication to the Duque de Bejar?  This is interesting; it is not just an ordinary dedication.  First of all, Cervantes perhaps was hoping to obtain the patronage of the Duke, but the Duke never responded or took any notice.  But here is where Cervantes plunged right into his satire of chivalric novels.  Passages of the dedication are plagiarized from a dedication in Poesias de Garcilaso, by Fernando de Herrera to the Marques de Ayamonte.  De Riquer comments that it is surprising to find such unoriginality at the start of one of the most original novels of all time.  However, there is a precedent: the dedication of Tirante el Blanco (one of the foremost chivalric novels) by Jobanot Martorell to the prince don Fernando de Portugal is a total plagiarization of a dedication of Los doce trabajos de Hercules by don Enrique de Villena.

The Prologue is a criticism of literature of Cervantes' day, and especially of his arch-rival Lope de Vega. Other authors used all kinds of conceits in their books, such as dedications, prologues, references and notes, etc.  They would ask other authors to write poems in praise of them and their book.  Cervantes pretends, in his Prologue, that he has been unable to come up with these things, and laments that readers will not consider him learned as a result, to the extent that he is almost discouraged from publishing his book.  His friend points out that those other things are really not necessary to make the work itself good, but if they are really needed, Cervantes can just make them up.  That way, readers will admire Cervantes and his book.  The point is that Don Quixote, with fake adornments, will still be worth more than other inferior works, with genuine adornments, even though it may be necessary to trick the reader into believing so.

I don't know how it is translated, but Cervantes points out that his not the father (padre) of this novel, but its godfather (padrastro).  I'm not sure if he says so yet, but he is not claiming to be the author.  In fact, he is (allegedly) relating a story that was translated from a manuscript written by an Arab (Cide Hamete Benengeli).  This accomplishes several things.  It distances him from the story, and we are free to judge the story without judging Cervantes.  Also, because the author is an Arab, we are not required to absolutely believe everything (sorry, no PC here!).  This also is part of the chivalric tradition: a knight requires three things - an escudero (sorry, only the Spanish word is coming to me - what do they call Sancho in English?), a woman to idealize and dedicate himself to, and a chronicler.

Cervantes has two main goals: to entertain the reader and make them laugh, and to trash the chivalric novel.  He is rejecting the ideal in favor of the real.  Of course, don Quixote represents the ideal and Sancho represents the real, but during the course of the novel, they will get closer to each other and even change places.

On the poems:  These poems are all 'authored' by characters from chivalric novels.  They are satirical.  The one by Amadis de Gaula refers to a scene where don Quixote imitates a scene that he read in the novel about Amadis.  Perhaps the most interesting is the final one, which is not really a poem, but a conversation between don Quixote's horse Rocinante and Babieca, the horse belonging to el Cid.  This gives the reader a sense of Rocinante as a character with a personality.  Interestingly, don Quixote does not seem to admire el Cid nearly as much as other knights that he has read about.  This is ironic, because el Cid is the only knight among them who was a real knight, so it is an example of how don Quixote is obsessed with the ideal over the real.

BTW, I've seen a couple of references in posts to picaresque literature.  This is not really a picaresque novel.  It is primarily based on chivalric literature, although there are examples of almost every literary genre of Cervantes' day.  Perhaps it is the wandering aspect that is confusing, because picaros wander from place to place, but so do knights errant.

Well, that is the lecture for today!!!  Don't know when I'll find time for another (I took today off because I overslept).

---

Muchas gracias, senora!  (Not sure how to get the tilde!)  Sancho is generally called a squire in the translations I've seen. 

One question I have for you -- in choosing an Arab author as his source, does Cervantes at any point indicate why an Arab would be writing about the adventures of a Spanish knight (or Spanish old guy with a knight complex)?  And I didn't notice any real disparagement of Don Quixote by the narrator -- Sancho sometimes criticizes him, and the Don's family does, as do the priest and the barber and the various people the Don meets, but not the narrator. 

[maude40]

Since I love poetry, I enjoyed the poems at the beginning, all except the first one. Even if I can't always parse a meaning from a poem I love to read them out loud. The first poem doesn't even read well due to the missing final syllable. I loved the last poem of the dialogue between Babieca and Rocinante. Babieca's attitude being that his statis is above Rocinante and his critizism of Don Quixote and his squire to me are a perfect lead in to the ridiculous actions taking place in the story. Yvonne

[Choisya]

Thank you so much Princess Dulcie - straight from Rocicante's mouth!  

I think the lack of regard for El Cid is for the same reason that Benengeli) was disregarded - because they are Arabs and presumably Muslims, not Christians.  

The reason that DQ is included in discussions of Picaresque literature is because it deals with the adventures of a poor rogue - picaro - and anti-hero.  Here is a nice comparison between the picaresqueness (!) of Huckleberry Finn and Don Quixote.

---

dulcinea3 wrote:

Without having time to actually read the work itself, I have managed to pull together: my class notes, my theme papers, a critical study of the novel (Aproximacion al Quijote, by Martin de Riquer, and the novel itself, heavily annotated by de Riquer.

Do you have the dedication to the Duque de Bejar?  This is interesting; it is not just an ordinary dedication.  First of all, Cervantes perhaps was hoping to obtain the patronage of the Duke, but the Duke never responded or took any notice.  But here is where Cervantes plunged right into his satire of chivalric novels.  Passages of the dedication are plagiarized from a dedication in Poesias de Garcilaso, by Fernando de Herrera to the Marques de Ayamonte.  De Riquer comments that it is surprising to find such unoriginality at the start of one of the most original novels of all time.  However, there is a precedent: the dedication of Tirante el Blanco (one of the foremost chivalric novels) by Jobanot Martorell to the prince don Fernando de Portugal is a total plagiarization of a dedication of Los doce trabajos de Hercules by don Enrique de Villena.

The Prologue is a criticism of literature of Cervantes' day, and especially of his arch-rival Lope de Vega. Other authors used all kinds of conceits in their books, such as dedications, prologues, references and notes, etc.  They would ask other authors to write poems in praise of them and their book.  Cervantes pretends, in his Prologue, that he has been unable to come up with these things, and laments that readers will not consider him learned as a result, to the extent that he is almost discouraged from publishing his book.  His friend points out that those other things are really not necessary to make the work itself good, but if they are really needed, Cervantes can just make them up.  That way, readers will admire Cervantes and his book.  The point is that Don Quixote, with fake adornments, will still be worth more than other inferior works, with genuine adornments, even though it may be necessary to trick the reader into believing so.

I don't know how it is translated, but Cervantes points out that his not the father (padre) of this novel, but its godfather (padrastro).  I'm not sure if he says so yet, but he is not claiming to be the author.  In fact, he is (allegedly) relating a story that was translated from a manuscript written by an Arab (Cide Hamete Benengeli).  This accomplishes several things.  It distances him from the story, and we are free to judge the story without judging Cervantes.  Also, because the author is an Arab, we are not required to absolutely believe everything (sorry, no PC here!).  This also is part of the chivalric tradition: a knight requires three things - an escudero (sorry, only the Spanish word is coming to me - what do they call Sancho in English?), a woman to idealize and dedicate himself to, and a chronicler.

Cervantes has two main goals: to entertain the reader and make them laugh, and to trash the chivalric novel.  He is rejecting the ideal in favor of the real.  Of course, don Quixote represents the ideal and Sancho represents the real, but during the course of the novel, they will get closer to each other and even change places.

On the poems:  These poems are all 'authored' by characters from chivalric novels.  They are satirical.  The one by Amadis de Gaula refers to a scene where don Quixote imitates a scene that he read in the novel about Amadis.  Perhaps the most interesting is the final one, which is not really a poem, but a conversation between don Quixote's horse Rocinante and Babieca, the horse belonging to el Cid.  This gives the reader a sense of Rocinante as a character with a personality.  Interestingly, don Quixote does not seem to admire el Cid nearly as much as other knights that he has read about.  This is ironic, because el Cid is the only knight among them who was a real knight, so it is an example of how don Quixote is obsessed with the ideal over the real.

BTW, I've seen a couple of references in posts to picaresque literature.  This is not really a picaresque novel.  It is primarily based on chivalric literature, although there are examples of almost every literary genre of Cervantes' day.  Perhaps it is the wandering aspect that is confusing, because picaros wander from place to place, but so do knights errant.

Well, that is the lecture for today!!!  Don't know when I'll find time for another (I took today off because I overslept).

---

[dulcinea3]

---

Choisya wrote:

Thank you so much Princess Dulcie - straight from Rocicante's mouth!  

I think the lack of regard for El Cid is for the same reason that Benengeli) was disregarded - because they are Arabs and presumably Muslims, not Christians.  

The reason that DQ is included in discussions of Picaresque literature is because it deals with the adventures of a poor rogue - picaro - and anti-hero.  Here is a nice comparison between the picaresqueness (!) of Huckleberry Finn and Don Quixote.

---

El Cid was not an Arab!  He was a Castilian nobleman, knight and great hero who fought in the reconquista and conquered many Arabs, regaining their lands for the Christians, although he also became a mercenary and worked for a Moorish king for a time, when the Christian king exiled him over some kind of quarrel.

I don't know, I still cannot accept don Quixote as a rogue or tramp.  As I recall, we will eventually meet a picaro in the story, although I can't remember the circumstances or who it is.  I'm pretty sure that Cervantes meant don Quixote to be a knight errant, not a picaro.  One of the main objects of his writing the novel was to skewer the chivalric literature that was so popular at that time.  And one of his main objections is that that type of literature is so idealized, while Cervantes favored the realistic.  Picaresque literature was not idealized, but 'warts and all' realism.  Don Quixote as a character is not realistic, but idealistic.  I believe that the critics that have identified him through the centuries as a picaro are mistaken.  I still think they were confused by his wandering around, which is just as characteristic of an idealized knight errant than of a realistic picaro.

[Choisya]

Oops Dulcie, sorry, I think I was confusing him with Saladin!  Mea culpa or whatever that is in Spanish.

I think I will go along with your explanation as to why the novel isn't picaresque because I don't think DQ is a rogue either. I see him behaving as an eccentric English gentleman might have behaved in those circumstances.

---

dulcinea3 wrote:

---

Choisya wrote:

Thank you so much Princess Dulcie - straight from Rocicante's mouth!  

I think the lack of regard for El Cid is for the same reason that Benengeli) was disregarded - because they are Arabs and presumably Muslims, not Christians.  

The reason that DQ is included in discussions of Picaresque literature is because it deals with the adventures of a poor rogue - picaro - and anti-hero.  Here is a nice comparison between the picaresqueness (!) of Huckleberry Finn and Don Quixote.

---

El Cid was not an Arab!  He was a Castilian nobleman, knight and great hero who fought in the reconquista and conquered many Arabs, regaining their lands for the Christians, although he also became a mercenary and worked for a Moorish king for a time, when the Christian king exiled him over some kind of quarrel.

I don't know, I still cannot accept don Quixote as a rogue or tramp.  As I recall, we will eventually meet a picaro in the story, although I can't remember the circumstances or who it is.  I'm pretty sure that Cervantes meant don Quixote to be a knight errant, not a picaro.  One of the main objects of his writing the novel was to skewer the chivalric literature that was so popular at that time.  And one of his main objections is that that type of literature is so idealized, while Cervantes favored the realistic.  Picaresque literature was not idealized, but 'warts and all' realism.  Don Quixote as a character is not realistic, but idealistic.  I believe that the critics that have identified him through the centuries as a picaro are mistaken.  I still think they were confused by his wandering around, which is just as characteristic of an idealized knight errant than of a realistic picaro.

---

  

[bdNM]

---

Choisya wrote:

Thank you so much Princess Dulcie - straight from Rocicante's mouth!  

I think the lack of regard for El Cid is for the same reason that Benengeli) was disregarded - because they are Arabs and presumably Muslims, not Christians.  

The reason that DQ is included in discussions of Picaresque literature is because it deals with the adventures of a poor rogue - picaro - and anti-hero.  Here is a nice comparison between the picaresqueness (!) of Huckleberry Finn and Don Quixote.

---

dulcinea3 wrote:

Without having time to actually read the work itself, I have managed to pull together: my class notes, my theme papers, a critical study of the novel (Aproximacion al Quijote, by Martin de Riquer, and the novel itself, heavily annotated by de Riquer.

Do you have the dedication to the Duque de Bejar?  This is interesting; it is not just an ordinary dedication.  First of all, Cervantes perhaps was hoping to obtain the patronage of the Duke, but the Duke never responded or took any notice.  But here is where Cervantes plunged right into his satire of chivalric novels.  Passages of the dedication are plagiarized from a dedication in Poesias de Garcilaso, by Fernando de Herrera to the Marques de Ayamonte.  De Riquer comments that it is surprising to find such unoriginality at the start of one of the most original novels of all time.  However, there is a precedent: the dedication of Tirante el Blanco (one of the foremost chivalric novels) by Jobanot Martorell to the prince don Fernando de Portugal is a total plagiarization of a dedication of Los doce trabajos de Hercules by don Enrique de Villena.

The Prologue is a criticism of literature of Cervantes' day, and especially of his arch-rival Lope de Vega. Other authors used all kinds of conceits in their books, such as dedications, prologues, references and notes, etc.  They would ask other authors to write poems in praise of them and their book.  Cervantes pretends, in his Prologue, that he has been unable to come up with these things, and laments that readers will not consider him learned as a result, to the extent that he is almost discouraged from publishing his book.  His friend points out that those other things are really not necessary to make the work itself good, but if they are really needed, Cervantes can just make them up.  That way, readers will admire Cervantes and his book.  The point is that Don Quixote, with fake adornments, will still be worth more than other inferior works, with genuine adornments, even though it may be necessary to trick the reader into believing so.

I don't know how it is translated, but Cervantes points out that his not the father (padre) of this novel, but its godfather (padrastro).  I'm not sure if he says so yet, but he is not claiming to be the author.  In fact, he is (allegedly) relating a story that was translated from a manuscript written by an Arab (Cide Hamete Benengeli).  This accomplishes several things.  It distances him from the story, and we are free to judge the story without judging Cervantes.  Also, because the author is an Arab, we are not required to absolutely believe everything (sorry, no PC here!).  This also is part of the chivalric tradition: a knight requires three things - an escudero (sorry, only the Spanish word is coming to me - what do they call Sancho in English?), a woman to idealize and dedicate himself to, and a chronicler.

Cervantes has two main goals: to entertain the reader and make them laugh, and to trash the chivalric novel.  He is rejecting the ideal in favor of the real.  Of course, don Quixote represents the ideal and Sancho represents the real, but during the course of the novel, they will get closer to each other and even change places.

On the poems:  These poems are all 'authored' by characters from chivalric novels.  They are satirical.  The one by Amadis de Gaula refers to a scene where don Quixote imitates a scene that he read in the novel about Amadis.  Perhaps the most interesting is the final one, which is not really a poem, but a conversation between don Quixote's horse Rocinante and Babieca, the horse belonging to el Cid.  This gives the reader a sense of Rocinante as a character with a personality.  Interestingly, don Quixote does not seem to admire el Cid nearly as much as other knights that he has read about.  This is ironic, because el Cid is the only knight among them who was a real knight, so it is an example of how don Quixote is obsessed with the ideal over the real.

BTW, I've seen a couple of references in posts to picaresque literature.  This is not really a picaresque novel.  It is primarily based on chivalric literature, although there are examples of almost every literary genre of Cervantes' day.  Perhaps it is the wandering aspect that is confusing, because picaros wander from place to place, but so do knights errant.

Well, that is the lecture for today!!!  Don't know when I'll find time for another (I took today off because I overslept).

---

---

Does it seem to you that Cervantes is being critical of Don Quixote as out of touch, or as coming under the spell of such literature?  Or is he being critical of his times, times in which the ideals of knighthood seem to be missing?  Or might he even be suggesting that the ideals of knight errantry, though wonderful (if he sees them as wonderful), were never really actualized -- the Middle Ages are quite different from the stories we get about knights and the court -- it was a pretty warty period in human existence? 

[Peppermill]

I received my copy of Nabokov's Lectures on Don Quixote a couple of days ago.  I'll try to share some excerpts over the weeks ahead -- many of you know that I enjoy what he has to say about literature, whether I agree him or not.  Nabokov helps me see things I would not alone.

"THE 'WHERE' OF DON QUIXOTE

"Let us not kid ourselves.  Cervantes is no land surveyor.  The wobbly backdrop of Don Quixote is fiction -- and rather unsatisfactory fiction at that.  With its preposterous inns full of belated characters from Italian storybooks ands its preposterous mountains teeming with lovelorn poetasters disguised as Arcadian shepherds, the picture Cervantes paints of the country is about as true and typical of seventeenth-century Spain as Santa Claus is true and typical of the twentieth-century North Pole.  Indeed, Cervantes seems to know Spain as little as Gogol did central Russia.

"However, it is still Spain, and here is where the generalities of 'real life' (in this case geography) can be applied to the generalities of a work of fiction. In a general way Don Quixote's adventures, in the first part, take place around the villages of Argamasilla and el Tobosco in La Mancha, in the Castilian parched plain, and to the south in the mountains of the Morena range, Sierra Morena....  Spain ...spreads in terms of platititudes (sorry, latitudes), degrees 43 to 36, from Massachusetts to North Carolina, with the book's main action taking place in  a region corresponding to Virginia.  You will find the university town of Salamanca in the west, near the border of Portugal; and you will admire Madrid and Toledo in the middle of Spain.  In the second part of the book the general drift of the ramble takes us north toward Saragossa in Aragon but then for reasons we shall discuss later the author changes his mind and sends his hero to Barcelona instead, on the eastern coast.

"If, however, we examine Don Quixote's excursions topographically, we are confronted by a ghastly muddle. I shall spare you its details and only mention the fact that throughout these adventures there is a mass of monstrous inconsistencies at every step.  The author avoids descriptions that would be particular and might be verified. It is quite impossible to follow these rambles in central Spain across four or six provinces, in the course of which until we reach Barcelona in the northeast one does not meet with a single known town or cross a single river. Cervantes's ignorance of places is wholesale and absolute, even in respect of Argamasilla in the La Mancha district, which some consider the more or less definite starting point."  pp. 4-5.

Links added.

[bdNM]

And yet, I get the sense that Nabokov seems to like DQ quite a bit -- so for him, this failure to be consistent is not a problem.  Just as Shakespeare's history plays are not so great as history, but many are truly excellent on all other counts. 

---

Peppermill wrote:

I received my copy of Nabokov's Lectures on Don Quixote a couple of days ago.  I'll try to share some excerpts over the weeks ahead -- many of you know that I enjoy what he has to say about literature, whether I agree him or not.  Nabokov helps me see things I would not alone.

"THE 'WHERE' OF DON QUIXOTE

"Let us not kid ourselves.  Cervantes is no land surveyor.  The wobbly backdrop of Don Quixote is fiction -- and rather unsatisfactory fiction at that.  With its preposterous inns full of belated characters from Italian storybooks ands its preposterous mountains teeming with lovelorn poetasters disguised as Arcadian shepherds, the picture Cervantes paints of the country is about as true and typical of seventeenth-century Spain as Santa Claus is true and typical of the twentieth-century North Pole.  Indeed, Cervantes seems to know Spain as little as Gogol did central Russia.

"However, it is still Spain, and here is where the generalities of 'real life' (in this case geography) can be applied to the generalities of a work of fiction. In a general way Don Quixote's adventures, in the first part, take place around the villages of Argamasilla and el Tobosco in La Mancha, in the Castilian parched plain, and to the south in the mountains of the Morena range, Sierra Morena....  Spain ...spreads in terms of platititudes (sorry, latitudes), degrees 43 to 36, from Massachusetts to North Carolina, with the book's main action taking place in  a region corresponding to Virginia.  You will find the university town of Salamanca in the west, near the border of Portugal; and you will admire Madrid and Toledo in the middle of Spain.  In the second part of the book the general drift of the ramble takes us north toward Saragossa in Aragon but then for reasons we shall discuss later the author changes his mind and sends his hero to Barcelona instead, on the eastern coast.

"If, however, we examine Don Quixote's excursions topographically, we are confronted by a ghastly muddle. I shall spare you its details and only mention the fact that throughout these adventures there is a mass of monstrous inconsistencies at every step.  The author avoids descriptions that would be particular and might be verified. It is quite impossible to follow these rambles in central Spain across four or six provinces, in the course of which until we reach Barcelona in the northeast one does not meet with a single known town or cross a single river. Cervantes's ignorance of places is wholesale and absolute, even in respect of Argamasilla in the La Mancha district, which some consider the more or less definite starting point."  pp. 4-5.

Links added.

---

[Choisya]

That's an interesting p.o.v. about DQ P.  I wonder if Cervantes intentionally made the topography part of the fantasy?   Is it metaphorical rather than realistic?  Does a plain signify tranquillity and a mountain difficulty and so on? I have read somewhere that the architecture in DQ is erotic, so are the windmills phallic?  The book itself is a 'ghastly muddle' so perhaps the topography deliberately reflects this?   Vague, rambling descriptions of topography became part of the Romantic tradition and featured later in gothic novels set in the 'sublime' Alps and the lofty quests of the knight errant are part of the literature of the sublime.   Perhaps Cervantes was an early exponent of this tradition?

[Peppermill]

Yes, indeed, VN has a great deal of respect for the character Don Quixote, less so for the novel, and almost an authorial competiveness in attitude towards Cervantes, as he compares Saavedra with his contemporaries and the greats across history.  But VN being VN, his lectures are laced with lofty snide remarks and self-deprecatory extended literary humor.   Still, note the ending of the section I quote in the next post:  "--and then, in 1605, he produced the first part of Don Quixote."  I hear admiration and respect, almost awe, in that "and then." VN will go on to compare Cervante's knight DQ with no less than Shakespeare's King Lear.

---

bdNM wrote:

And yet, I get the sense that Nabokov seems to like DQ quite a bit -- so for him, this failure to be consistent is not a problem.  Just as Shakespeare's history plays are not so great as history, but many are truly excellent on all other counts. 

---

[Peppermill]

Another except from Nabokov's Lectures on Don Quixote:

“THE ‘WHEN?’ OF THE BOOK

“So much for space. Now about time.

“From 1667, the publication year of Milton’s Paradise Lost {VN added to his students, ‘which most of you regained under Prof. Finley’s guidance,” John H. Finley being a distinguished colleague at Harvard}, we now slide back into a sunshot hell, back to the first two decades of the seventeenth century.

“Odysseus in a blaze of bronze leaping from the threshold upon the wooers; Dante shuddering at Virgil’s side as sinner and snake grade into one; Satan bombing the angels—these and others exist within a form or phase of art that we call epic. Great literatures of the past seem to have been born on the periphery of Europe, along the rim of the known world.  We are aware of such southeastern, southern, and northwestern points as, respectively, Greece, Italy, and England.  A fourth point is now Spain in the southwest.

“What we shall witness now is the evolution of the epic form, the shedding of its metrical skin, the hoofing of its feet, a sudden fertile cross between the winged monster of the epic and the specialized prose form of entertaining narration, more or less a domesticated mammal, if I may pursue the metaphor to its lame end.  The result is a fertile hybrid, a new species, the European novel.

“So the place is Spain and the time is 1605 to 1615, a very handy decade easy to pocket and keep.  Spanish literature flourishes, Lope de Vega writes 500 plays which today are as dead as the armful of plays by his contemporary, Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra.   Our man comes very softly out of his corner.   I can devote only a slanting minute to his life, which, however, you will easily find in various introductions to his work.  We are interested in books, not people.  Of Saavedra’s maimed hand you will learn not from me.

“Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (1547-1616); William Shakespeare (1564-1616).  The Spanish empire was at the height of its power and fame when Cervantes was born. Its worst troubles and its best literature began at the end of the century.  Madrid in the days of Cervante’s literary apprenticeship, from 1583 onward, was alive with needy rhymesters and producers of more or less polished Castilian prose.  There was, as I have already said, Lope de Vega, who completely overshadowed the playwright Cervantes and could write an entire play within twenty-four hours with all the jokes and deaths necessary.  There was Cervantes himself—a failure as a soldier, as a poet, as a playwright, as an official (he was paid sixty cents a day for requisitioning wheat for the luckless Spanish Armada)—and then, in 1605, he produced the first part of Don Quixote.”  pp. 5-6.

NV goes on to make comparisons on what is happening in literature across Europe (and America).  I'll try to share a couple of paragraphs of that another time.  (The text has about six paragraphs, including ones for France, Italy, Germany, and Russia.)