Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Don Quixote - Revisited
>
Chapters XIX - XXVII
The bálsamo is what DQ thinks is the legendary "balm of Fierabras," a combination of rosemary, wine, oil, and salt. The legend was that this balm was used to anoint the body of Jesus and it would cure anyone who drank it. (See Ch. 17) It doesn't sound particularly appetizing, but I'm not sure why it makes them so sick.
Thomas wrote: "Sancho tells him a story. What do you think of this story?"I laughed out loud, especially at how it "ends".
Thomas wrote: "DQ seems to be looking for more madness. Or is his imitation of chivalry his way of finding reason in the world? .."I'm not sure if he is looking for more madness or if he is suggesting that madness is all around us and that we each see what we want to see:
. . . so, what seems to you a barber's basin seems to me the helmet of Mambrino, and will seem another thing to someone else."
Is he suggesting truth is relative? The truth/reality one person sees may strike another person as false and/or ludicrous.
I was struck by Sancho's intelligence (is that the right word?) in the first few chapters of this section--the way he uses trickery and deception to manipulate DQ into doing what he wants him to do.
Tamara wrote: "I was struck by Sancho's intelligence (is that the right word?) in the first few chapters of this section--the way he uses trickery and deception to manipulate DQ into doing what he wants him to do."DQ plays by specific rules, which makes him very predictable. This seems to be counter intuitive -- that a mad man would be predictable -- but what we call madness is for him just a different way of life. That his mores collide with ours is what makes him so interesting, and funny. It's also why he suffers.
Tamara wrote: "I was struck by Sancho's intelligence (is that the right word?) in the first few chapters of this section--the way he uses trickery and deception to manipulate DQ into doing what he wants him to do."Sancho seems to me to be presented pretty much throughout as a fairly bright man, with a good grasp of living in the late-sixteenth-century countryside, but utterly ignorant of the larger world, and only too aware of that.
He is willing to listen to his social superiors, especially those who can read, and who really know things he has never heard of. But experience keeps intruding into his new master's "knowledge."
On this theme of learning and ignorance,, in Grossman's translation Sancho talks about being promised the rule of an "insula," which is course Latin for island -- but does he know that it is the same as a plain "isla"?
And would that make any difference to his conception of whether such a gift would even be possible?
Someone with access to a Spanish copy could tell us if Grossman is here accurately reproducing a nuance of the original that other translations I have seen go right over without comment.
Incidentally, although the Spanish "Isla" is obviously descended from Latin "Insula," the same is only true in part of English "Island" -- the silent "s" seems to have been borrowed from the Latin word.
But the Old English (Anglo-Saxon) word was ea-lond, water-land, and was used for any land accessible by water, without much regard for niceties about continents and "real" islands.
Ian wrote: "On this theme of learning and ignorance,, in Grossman's translation Sancho talks about being promised the rule of an "insula," which is course Latin for island -- but does he know that it is the same as a plain "isla"?."Sancho appears to be repeating DQ's archaism, who has presumably picked it up from his novel reading. One of the endearing aspects of Sancho is how he tries to imitate DQ, even though he knows his master is a little bit loco. He continues to follow him and believe in him despite all the trouble he causes them both.
Thomas wrote: "The bálsamo is what DQ thinks is the legendary "balm of Fierabras," a combination of rosemary, wine, oil, and salt. The legend was that this balm was used to anoint the body of Jesus and it would c..."This is probably an actual recipe or very close to one which may have been employed not as a typical but one of the magical remedies at the time. Recall that Cervantes' father was a bloodletter/surgeon and he had a considerable amount of knowledge of the art of medicine. His private library contained several medical texts including the famous edition of the Discorides. Some of his writings indicate that he read them all well and probably didn't think them very useful.
This balsam apparently DID cause intense vomiting, at first and then great fatigue and finally a deep sleep. Perhaps it was the deep sleep which had the healing effect
There is an engraving by Ricardo de los Rios here of this here:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/D...
I guess I was mistaken when I thought Dulcinea as a passive 'princess'. It sounds like she is a very outspoken and independent girl who could beat both DQ and Sancho! I am beginning to think that DQ is more attracted to strong independent women who speak their mind and has something of a different perspective that lies beyond just mere appearances, but then again, when he exhibits his 'certain things' to Sancho....
Borum wrote: "I guess I was mistaken when I thought Dulcinea as a passive 'princess'. It sounds like she is a very outspoken and independent girl who could beat both DQ and Sancho! I am beginning to think that D..."Do you think that Dulcinea has anything to do with the real person, Aldonza Lorenzo? It seems to me that she's an idealized woman, cut on the pattern of a chivalric princess, and for some reason DQ has decided to stick this pattern on the rough and real Aldonza. Why Aldonza though? It seems rather... random.
Thomas wrote: "Why Aldonza though? It seems rather... random."Completely agree, Thomas. It does seem rather random, but perhaps by including what seems like randomness, MDC lets us into experiencing what DQ himself really experiences. Much like the two tales that are abruptly cut-off, I feel like MDC is telling us: "And now for something completely different...."
Thomas wrote: "Why Aldonza though? It seems rather... random.."But doesn't DQ have a history of idealizing women--especially women who are rough around the edges and may even be women of ill repute? He needs to have a princess to adhere to the requirements of chivalry. Based on his history of singing rhapsodies for women who are unlikely candidates for such honor, Aldonza Lorenza seems as good as any to fit the bill.
Unless there is something else going on here that I'm completely missing.
I remember back in chapter XV when he has a Freudian slip (at least I THINK it may have been a Freudian slip): "And if it were not because I imagine...did I say imagine? ...because I know for a fact that all these discomforts are an integral part of the practice of arms," -p.105 Grossman editionAlso when Sancho derides his choice of lady, he replies: "And yes, not every poet who praises a lady, calling her by another name, really has one. Do you think the Amaryllises, Phyllises, Sylvias, .... and all the rest that fill books, .... are really ladies of flesh and blood who belong to those who celebrate them? No, of course not, for most are imagined in order to provide a subject for their verses, and so that people will think of them as lovers and as men who have the capacity to be lovers."-p.200
So I think that DQ, in a subconscious manner has a hint of all this being an imagination, yet thinks that this discrepancy with reality is another proof of his 'capacity' to love and perhaps this is the reason he chooses the most unlikely candidates (or at least those not adhering to chivalric romances) and thus chooses those that aren't exactly fragile or prudish.
Thomas wrote: "The bálsamo is what DQ thinks is the legendary "balm of Fierabras," a combination of rosemary, wine, oil, and salt. ... It doesn't sound particularly appetizing, but I'm not sure why it makes them so sick."My hunch is that it is too much oil that makes them sick. After all that boiling I wonder if any wine was left to balance out the fat. When you guzzle this stuff down as they did the body is going to react.
Rhonda wrote: "This balsam apparently DID cause intense vomiting, at first and then great fatigue and finally a deep sleep."Interesting. It must have been an expectorant and/or emetic.
Borum wrote: "I remember back in chapter XV when he has a Freudian slip (at least I THINK it may have been a Freudian slip): "And if it were not because I imagine...did I say imagine? ...because I know for a fac..."Nice catch. It's these little moments of lucidity that make DQ real to me, that give him depth. They show us that, at least in those moments, he chooses to be loony. He makes a conscious decision to prefer his imagination over a commonly understood reality. This seems strangely heroic to me, especially when he gets beaten up time and again for his loyalty to an idiosyncratic ideal.
Not sure if it's Edith Grossman's translation, or my more advanced years compared to when I last read Don Quixote, but I'm finding the book genuinely hilarious this time around. As well as the cheap laughs to be had at the toilet humour (“It seems to me, Sancho, that you are very frightened.” “Yes, I am,” responded Sancho, “but what makes your grace see that now more than ever?” “Because you smell now more than ever, and not of amber,” responded Don Quixote), there are also sublime moments of comic interaction between the two. Highlights for me are when Sancho Panza starts reeling off his list of proverbs ("I tend to my vines, it’s their business, not mine; I don’t stick my nose in; if you buy and lie, your purse wants to know why") and the different way that SP / DQ see Aldonza / Dulcinea ("She can throw a metal bar just as well as the brawniest lad in the village").
Thomas wrote: "It's these little moments of lucidity that make DQ real to me, that give him depth. They show us that, at least in those moments, he chooses to be loony.."Yes, I think that's an important distinction. DQ has made the choice to try and live his life in adherence with an unrealistic chivalric code. This contrasts with Cardenio, who has been driven mad by external circumstances (forbidden love).
Ian wrote: "... Someone with access to a Spanish copy could tell us if Grossman is here accurately reproducing a nuance of the original that other translations I have seen go right over without comment. ..."Ian, in my Spanish version, they use the word "ínsula" all the time: the "narrator", Don Quijote, Sancho... But, please, note that they use a spanish version with a sign over the initial "i". Thank you for bringing this into attention!
I am not sure what to think of Sancho's response in chapter XXI to DQ's declaration that:he marries his squire to one of the princess’s ladies-in-waiting, the one, no doubt, who acted as mediator in his love affair, and who is the daughter of a very prominent duke.” “That’s what I want, honestly,” said Sancho. . .Sancho is already married with children, which he left behind to be a squire for DQ. Is Sancho really responding honestly as he claims or is he just playing along here? Is it just me, or does anyone else feel disappointed that if given the chance he would marry someone else?
At times I wonder if Sancho is just being a kind neighbor and playing the chaperone to DQ in his mad wanderings, but most of the time he seems to be caught up in the madness himself.
I also wonder about this:All we need do now is to see which king of Christians or heathens is waging a war and has a beautiful daughterIt seems DQ is willing to fight for a non-christian king. I would think a chivalric knight would restrict his kings to the christian ones only.
Now I feel like I am in an argument of who would win in a fight between Batman and Superman, despite any recent movies that explored the question.
To me, Sancho came across like an adult who plays a make-believe game with a child. Both know, for example, that a pile of cushions and blankets strategically positioned in the middle of the living room floor do not make not a real fort. But both play along, pretending it's a real fort.Sancho strikes me as the adult in this scenario. He is playing along with DQ's childlike imaginings. And on some level, even DQ gives us glimpses he knows his imaginary world does not correspond with reality. But he prefers the world his imagination creates to the one that actually exists.
Monica wrote: "Ian wrote: "... Someone with access to a Spanish copy could tell us if Grossman is here accurately reproducing a nuance of the original that other translations I have seen go right over without com..."Thank you.
I didn't see this in other translations, so I wondered (a) whether Grossman was reproducing a feature of the original, and (b) whether that feature had any significance in indicating a given character's knowledge.
Tamara wrote: "To me, Sancho came across like an adult who plays a make-believe game with a child. Both know, for example, that a pile of cushions and blankets strategically positioned in the middle of the living..."Sometimes this fits, especially when Sancho is trying to coax Don Quixote into doing something sensible.
But elsewhere, as with the pounding of the trip-hammers, Sancho seems genuinely frightened by something apparently beyond his experience.
Presumably he didn't live anywhere near water flowing in enough volume to drive a water-wheel -- unlike windmills, which could be placed almost anywhere.
I liked the dialog between Sancho and DQ concerning Sancho's story.First, we find out Sancho was once a shepherd:
. . .for the lore I learned when I was a shepherd tells me it’s less than three hours till dawn. . .I thought DQ's impatience with the details of Sancho's counting of every sheep was a particularly telling point in the nature of DQ's reading. For Sancho, a former shepherd, every sheep would be important, and losing track of them would indeed bring about the end of the endeavor as Sancho demonstrates by ending his story:
Part 2: Chapter 20
“Just say he ferried them all,” said Don Quixote. “If you keep going back and forth like that, it will take you a year to get them across.” “How many have gone across so far?” said Sancho. “How the devil should I know?” responded Don Quixote. “That’s just what I told your grace to do: to keep a good count. Well, by God, the story’s over, and there’s no way to go on.”I am reminded a bit about the inadequacy of some of the generalities in our recent read of Democracy In America, despite Tocqueville's own warnings against taking shortcuts at the expense of formality. Although here it seems to be imagination at the expense of reality.
David wrote: "It seems DQ is willing to fight for a non-christian king. I would think a chivalric knight would restrict his kings to the christian ones only."I think this mimics Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, El Cid, the national champion of Spain.
Anyone else catch that DQ's niece will be the one to sign over the donkeys to Sancho? Makes me wonder if his niece doesn't have effective control of the estate. Perhaps after he sold land for books? Perhaps DQ's been having vivid daydreams longer than we thought?Then again, I could be pushing meaning where it doesn't exist -- my own form of madness.
------------------------
There are continuity problems at times. Names change for no good reason, the donkey disappears (the explanation in Grossman is tortured), Sancho will marry a young princess even though he is married ( hold over from the Moors? -- doubtful). Makes me wonder if the problem is with the author, and here we are trying to force continuity on it all. This is very episodic. Also makes me wonder if bits and pieces were written over many years, perhaps in prison, and he just lost track? Pick the prison of your choice.
The counting sheep story followed by the stinky, hold your nose story was too much for me. Every time I tried to read on I would crack up. Finally I had to put the book away and go do something else. Something about these two in the dead of night in the middle of the woods doing a kind of Who's-On-First bit that just cracks me up.
Dave wrote: "("She can throw a metal bar just as well as the brawniest lad in the village")."Makes me wonder if this isn't a reference to a contemporary sport, like axe throwing or Olympic hammer throw?
Reread the passage regarding signature and niece, and I read it wrong the first time. It is DQ who will sign, She will execute to order, Sorry about that.
Tamara wrote: "To me, Sancho came across like an adult who plays a make-believe game with a child. Both know, for example, that a pile of cushions and blankets strategically positioned in the middle of the living..."DQ preferring his imagination to reality reminds me of a speech made by my favorite Narnian character, Puddleglum: "Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all of those things—trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones... We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia... and that's a small loss if the world's as dull as you say."
This is even more striking a speech as Puddleglum is well known for his pessimistic outlook on life. This shows how Cervantes, by occasionally showing DQ's sane side or Sancho's realistic side, contrasts and accentuates their 'mad and imaginary episodes'.
Also, Arthur Schopenhauer, the reknowned pessimist commented in his World as Will and Representation : "if, in a particular case, the resistance and opposition of the will to the assimilation of some knowledge reaches such a degree that... certain events or circumstances are wholly suppressed for the intellect, because the will cannot bear the sight of them; and then if the resultant gaps are arbitrarily filled up for the sake of the necessary connection; we then have madness". Could it be that Sancho's original life is so miserable that he wants to escape from this by filling it in with insulas and riches? If so, what traumatic or unbearable reality would DQ be escaping from?
David wrote: "I am not sure what to think of Sancho's response in chapter XXI to DQ's declaration ...At times I wonder if Sancho is just being a kind neighbor and playing the chaperone to DQ in his mad wanderings, but most of the time he seems to be caught up in the madness himself."
I wonder too about Sancho. Yuval Harari wrote about the cognitive revolution and how the collective fiction defines what we are. The imaginative narrative building up a cooperation between the knight errant and the squire seems to reflect how the human society is based on many collective narratives of our own such as the exchange system and the social hierarchy. Harari also wrote about Borges's short story 'A Problem' in his book Homo Deus where Don Quixote kills a real person due to his fantasies and asks a more darker question about this human condition: "what happens when the yarns spun by our narrating self cause grievous harm to ourselves or those around us?"
Dave wrote: "Not sure if it's Edith Grossman's translation, or my more advanced years compared to when I last read Don Quixote, but I'm finding the book genuinely hilarious this time around. As well as the chea..."I know! I also love the audible version of Grossman's translation. The voice actor is awesome! I usually listen and read this on the subway, and I find it very embarrassing whenever I burst out laughing or giggling like a lunatic.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "There are continuity problems at times. Names change for no good reason, the donkey disappears (the explanation in Grossman is tortured), Sancho will marry a young princess even though he is married ( hold over from the Moors? -- doubtful). Makes me wonder if the problem is with the author, and here we are trying to force continuity on it all.."Sancho's inconsistencies are the kinds of flaws we might expect in a living breathing human being, and I suppose the reader can forgive the continuity problems in the text on the same basis. A writer who avoids these errors might be more technically perfect, but the work might lose its soul in the pursuit of perfection. Or it could end up sounding like Sancho's story, compulsively focused on minute and meaningless details. (Strangely enough, Kafka floated the idea that the character DQ was the invention of Sancho, possibly making Sancho the narrator of Don Quixote.)
Borum wrote: "I wonder too about Sancho. Yuval Harari wrote about the cognitive revolution and how the collective fiction defines what we are.."This is a fascinating idea. If the purpose of Don Quixote were only what the author of the preface says it is, to undermine the authority of books of chivalry, it would probably be long forgotten by now. But it appeals to us on a much higher level. DQ's adherence to the principles of chivalry is just an exemplar of dogmatic belief, which can take many different forms.
Ian wrote: "Tamara wrote: "I was struck by Sancho's intelligence (is that the right word?) in the first few chapters of this section--the way he uses trickery and deception to manipulate DQ into doing what he ..."The Gutenberg version states "insula". www.gutenberg.org/files/2000/2000-h/2... Although sometimes the word isla is used too but in another context.. I confirmed that the word insula is used at the Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra-....
I look at the Real Academia Española Dictionary (https://dle.rae.es/?id=LomP439) and in spanish that word means island but also
1. f. Lugar pequeño o gobierno de poca entidad, a semejanza del encomendado a Sancho en el Quijote.
Small place or government of little importance, as given to Sancho at Don Quixote.
I don't know what infer of that. Is Sancho who expects more than DQ intended?
Rafael wrote: "The Gutenberg version states "insula". www.gutenberg.org/files/2000/2000-h/2... Although sometimes the word isla is used too but in another context.. I confirmed that the word insula is used at the Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes ..."Thanks very much for your effort.
I have to wonder whether the specialized use of "insula" by Cervantes is a deliberate carry-over from the high-flown language of the romances of chivalry, and also conveys some lack of geographical clarity that might also also found there.
As I understand it from the secondary literature, in the great forefather of the Iberian genre, the hero of "Amadis of Gaul" (or "Gaule") may be from modern France, i.e., roughly Caesar's Gallia, or specifically from Brittany, or somewhere in its vicinity, or from an entirely imaginary place which has been given a fine-sounding-name without recognizable coordinates.
This would have followed, perhaps not intentionally, an old medieval practice -- some Arthurian romancers confounded the Britons (the Welsh) and the Bretons, and their geography, not to mention that of northern England and Scotland, and have knights *ride* across what would really be the English Channel or the North Sea in the course of their wandering adventures!*
The sometimes high-flown language and rhetorical devices reported of the Spanish romances probably follows the tradition of the major Arthurian French prose Romances, like the "Prose Lancelot" and the "Prose Tristan," which apparently had some influence in the peninsula. This style did not leave much trace in English literature, though.
Their main representative in English is the "Morte D'Arthur," a grand compendium of Arthurian stories of various sources, in which Sir Thomas Malory cut down his base texts in the the interest of both narrative simplicity and a generally clear English style -- probably wisely, as his occasional attempts to imitate French rhetoric generally wind up rather cloudy.
People like Mark Twain, and the poet Robert Graves, with too little knowledge of late Middle English, seem to have thought that Malory was deliberately using especially fancy language, when he was merely being colloquial -- for his own time and place, and social class. Medieval works steeped in the tradition of Latin rhetoric, going back to the teachings of Cicero and a pseudo-Cicero -- a required topic in the better medieval schools, along with elementary logic -- read quite differently.
*Real geography does appear from time to time. In Malory, and in one of his Middle English sources, there is some real knowledge of France, most of it probably picked up firsthand at various times in the Hundred Years' War, since it includes plausible routes for contending armies. But this is hardly noticeable to moderns unless someone points it out.
Thomas wrote: "Sancho's inconsistencies are the kinds of flaws we might expect in a living breathing human being, and I suppose the reader can forgive the continuity problems in the text on the same basis. "Sure. My only point was if Cervantes made a mistake or was forgetful, then there's no sense trying to weave those flaws into the story because they aren't part of it. Forgiving Cervantes? Not even necessary. But we still have to separate out the unintended from the intended.
I've thought more about Sancho, and I'm not sure I agree that his inconsistencies are the kinds of flaws we might expect in a living breathing human being. I think it is past time to question his sanity.
There are critics who say Sancho represents sanity and good sense, while DQ represents madness. But Sancho is beat up as much as DQ, knows DQ is crazy -- he calls him as much -- and yet he still expects his insula. That's its own kind of crazy. I'm not sure what to make of that. Is Sancho just being a good friend? Or perhaps Sancho forgetting he's married or forgetting his wife's name is Cervantes way of showing us Sancho is running away from home just like DQ is.
I agree that there's no need to explain the inconsistencies in the text as some element of theme or character development. I, too, read them as a function of 900 plus pages being written over a period of time and likely not edited with a fine toothed comb. Maybe this is too irreverent a position for some readers, but I think much of this novel is satire something like Saturday Night Live today, constructed quickly, playing a bit fast and loose, but at its best an absolutely scathing and brilliant piece of contemporary criticism that hits the mark. It's funny to imagine smart, attentive viewers dissecting SNL episodes in this same way 500 years from now. If technology makes it possible to even see them!
Grossman points out some of the inconsistencies in her footnotes, btw, including a "controversy" among scholars about the fact that Sancho's donkey is suddenly missing. She attributes it to "an oversight of Cervantes or the printer, Juan de la Cuesta" in the first edition.
I was also interested in a footnote that claims Shakespeare wrote a play, now lost, based on Cardenio's story. It's just the sort of juicy tale you can imagine him putting to poetry. I'm also seeing now the answer to my earlier question about how MC was going to sustain this story over 900 pages. Are we going to have more lengthy diversionary tales like this one?
When I saw the second story being interrupted I wanted to kill DQ. Gladly the story was finally told. I hope Sancho remember his story to tell it to someone, although I am pretty sure that it will remains untold.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "I've thought more about Sancho, and I'm not sure I agree that his inconsistencies are the kinds of flaws we might expect in a living breathing human being. I think it is past time to question his sanity. "I think what we, and the so-called "sane" characters in the novel call "crazy" is not really insanity per se. I keep thinking that I might be able to compare DQ to Hamlet -- he is mad north-northwest. When rationality suits him, DQ can be perfectly rational. He is able to justify his suffering upon chivalric grounds, argue that it doesn't matter if Dulcinea in her idealized form actually exists, and he even argues why it's better to go mad on purpose than "to lose one's reason for no reason." He also admits when he is in error, if it doesn't offend his ideals to do so. All this rationality is based on the bizarre premise of chivalric honor, but if one accepts this premise, it's all very reasonable. Substitute chivalry with some other kind of fundamentalism and the same arguments could hold.
Sancho, on the other hand, is not quite so smart. But he does have his own desires and obsessions, and he props them up with "dichos," his moronic proverbs, in the same way that DQ presents arguments. Most people don't argue from principles to conclusions in everyday life -- they think like Sancho. They go with their gut and defend their ideas with popular opinions and cliches. I suppose Cervantes is satirizing this way of thinking and DQ's high-brow rationalizations at the same time by making them his odd couple.
Kathy wrote: "I was also interested in a footnote that claims Shakespeare wrote a play, now lost, based on Cardenio's story. It's just the sort of juicy tale you can imagine him putting to poetry. I'm also seein..."Is there such a thing as "tragic relief"? I wonder if the purpose of the diversionary tales is to give the reader a break from the satire. (Though it's hard for me to see them as random side shows. So far the theme of madness seems to run through them all, and I suspect this is intentional.)
You've now got me wondering if the difference between DQ and Sancho is a difference in degree or a difference in kind. Is there some sort of hierarchy going on with Sancho's gut-generated beliefs at the lower end of the scale and DQ's high-brow generalizations somewhere at the top? Are they both on the same scale? Or are these two entirely different ways of thinking/operating that never the twain shall meet?
I'm also wondering which is more amenable to change and which is more likely to be entrenched in his/her position.
Thomas wrote: "All this rationality is based on the bizarre premise of chivalric honor, but if one accepts this premise, it's all very reasonable. Substitute chivalry with some other kind of fundamentalism and the same arguments could hold. "Perhaps we agree as to motives and reasons but disagree as to conclusions. I consider an uncompromising ideology (call it fundamentalism) to be a pathology. DQ is an uncompromising ideologue concerning his code of chivalry. He may be able to justify to himself his actions; his delusion may even be internally consistent and logical; but it's the absoluteness with which he embraces the premise and not the premise itself that is unreasonable. That he is willing to go as far as trying to kill people to satisfy his belief is what makes him insane.
As you say, chivalry could easily be swapped out for another form of fundamentalism, bizarre or far more normal, and nothing would change. Beware the uncompromising ideologue who acquires power . . . or a sword and a lance.
Tamara wrote: "You've now got me wondering if the difference between DQ and Sancho is a difference in degree or a difference in kind. "I'm starting to think this myself. DQ, because of his outrageous behavior and screwy beliefs, is the one everyone will call crazy, but Sancho is a bit crazy too, isn't he? But he's far less the social misfit that DQ is, so his kind of insanity escapes notice. They both seem to be running away from something.
It seems to me Cervantes may be suggesting that Sancho and DQ, in fact maybe we all have our own subjective touch of madness because we all see things from our own peculiar perspective. I think Chapter XXII Regarding the liberty that Don Quixote gave to many unfortunate men. . . underscores this by the way each man justifies his own crime in explaining his misfortune.One of them even has crossed eyes, suggesting double-vision possibly giving him more than one perspective. He even goes by two names, Pasamonte or Parapilla.
Interestingly, DQ, even though he interviews them seems set from the beginning to release them, seems to dismiss the prisoner's perspectives as mere formality despite the fact they attempt to justify their being released for their slight indescretions. Of course the perspective of reality knocks DQ down once again.
David wrote: "It seems to me Cervantes may be suggesting that Sancho and DQ, in fact maybe we all have our own subjective touch of madness because we all see things from our own peculiar perspective. I think Cha..."Yes, a theme emerges.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (other topics)Imperial Spain, 1469 - 1716 (other topics)
Is it surprising that DQ recognizes the fulling hammers for what they are -- as opposed to the windmill episode? Sancho asks DQ afterwards,
"Wasn't it laughable how frightened we were, and wouldn't it make a good story?"
"I do not deny," responded Don Quixote, "that what happened to us is deserving of laughter, but it does not deserve to be told, for not all persons are wise enough to put things in their proper place."
Is DQ in control of his delusions? Are we? (Especially when we are reading fiction?) Which makes the better story -- one in which the characters see everything with accuracy, or one in which they are mistaken, and gradually come to see things in a different light?
DQ basically robs the barber of "Mambrino's helmet" and in the next episode analyzes, and reverses, the justice meted out to a gang of criminals. The criminals then turn on DQ and Sancho and demonstrate the price of DQ's delusion. DQ not only sees the world in terms of the chivalric code, but he tries to make the world bend to that code. Is the code what gives DQ's life meaning? Can it be meaningful even if it is irrational?
The story of Cardenio presents another kind of madness, one that competes with DQ's madness and allows the reader to contrast and compare. Cardenio is clearly love-sick, but when he makes an "unorthodox" comment on the story of Amadis, DQ thinks Cardenio must be crazy. Sancho points out that the knights who DQ wants to imitate went crazy for a reason, whereas DQ seems to be imitating them for no reason at all. DQ responds,
Therein lies the virtue, and the excellence of my enterprise, for a knight errant deserves neither glory nor thanks if he goes mad for a reason. The great achievement is to lose one's reason for no reason..." DQ explains that his madness and penance are act of fidelity to his lady, Dulcinea of Toboso, and he will return to sanity when Sancho returns with a letter from her. He then inquires into the safety of the helmet of Mambrino. Sancho remarks that it is no more than a barber's basin, and DQ instructs him:
"Is it possible that in all the time you have traveled with me you have not yet noticed that all things having to do with knights errant appear to be chimerical, foolish, senseless, and turned inside out? And not because they really are, but because hordes of enchanters always walk among us and alter and change everything and turn things into whatever they please, according to whether they wish to favor us or destroy us; and so, what seems to you a barber's basin seems to me the helmet of Mambrino, and will seem another things to someone else."
It's hard to read this and not think back on Descartes' "evil genius", but at least Descartes was trying to find certainty in a world of deception. DQ seems to be looking for more madness. Or is his imitation of chivalry his way of finding reason in the world?