Chapter XLV - End of Part One

[Thomas]

Chapter 45 continues the strange argument over the nature of the helmet of Mambrino, and whether the barber's purloined packsaddle is in fact a horse harness. It seems like a strange argument, and I suppose it is, but it's one that reminds me of so many philosophical arguments over the nature of things. Especially coming on the heels of the argument of the man of arms vs. the man of letters. In this case, it turns out that academic matters of letters leads to a matter of arms -- an actual fight -- when DQ attacks one of the officers of the Holy Brotherhood. Is it coincidental that the book ends with DQ's attack on another religious group, the penitents, in an effort to free the Blessed Virgin (who he thinks is an imprisoned damsel in distress?)

I'm also curious if the criticism that the Canon applies in Chapt. 47 to novels of chivalry might also apply to the novel Don Quixote.

In my opinion this kind of writing and composition belongs to the genre called Milesian tales, which are foolish stories only meant to delight and not to teach, unlike moral tales, which delight and teach at the same time... I have seen no book of chivalry that creates a complete tale, a body with all its members intact, so that the middle corresponds to the beginning, and the end to the beginning and the middle; instead, they are composed with so many members that the intention seems to be to shape a chimera or a monster rather than to create a well-proportioned figure.

Does the first part of DQ, with its numerous interpolated stories, hold together as a whole?

[Rafael]

I should confess that is hard to remember all the characters that appears. So maybe my answer to the question at the end of your comment is yes.

[David]

Thomas wrote: "n my opinion this kind of writing and composition belongs to the genre called Milesian tales, which are foolish stories only meant to delight and not to teach, unlike moral tales, which delight and teach at the same time..."

I keyed in on the term Milesian and recalled seeing it before in the opening sentence of The Golden Ass by Apuleius:

Now, what I propose in this Milesian discourse is to string together for you a series of different stories and to charm your ears, kind reader, with amusing gossip
Apuleius. The Golden Ass (Penguin Classics) (p. 7). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Is DQ intentionally morally instructive, or do we only read it that way; what moral lessons can we take away, so far? Is there a difference between Apuleius addressing his audience as kind readers and Cervantes addressing his audience as Idle readers? If using a main story as a frame around a bunch of smaller related stories is what makes a novel, why do we say DQ is the first novel, and not The Golden Ass?

[Paige]

Thomas wrote: "Does the first part of DQ, with its numerous interpolated stories, hold together as a whole? "

The interpolated stories were probably my favorite bits. I don't know that DQ does hang together as a whole, with or without them. I do think the interpolated stories comment on the main story of DQ, but personally I find that main story more than a little tedious. Which is to say, if it is a Milesian tale I think it misses the mark. I enjoy the book a lot more when I treat it as something to study, think about, discuss with others, etc.

[Thomas]

David wrote: "Is DQ intentionally morally instructive, or do we only read it that way; what moral lessons can we take away, so far? Is there a difference between Apuleius addressing his audience as kind readers and Cervantes addressing his audience as Idle readers? If using a main story as a frame around a bunch of smaller related stories is what makes a novel, why do we say DQ is the first novel, and not The Golden Ass? "

I don't think DQ is morally instructive; it might actually be morally subversive. It purports to be a parody of chivalric novels, but in a lot of ways it resembles one. It's as if a reality show were made about a group of TV critics who hate reality shows. Ultimately it seems to me to be a defense of literature as entertainment.

I'm puzzled as well at the claim that DQ is the first novel (or first modern novel.) To stand as a modern novel I think it must stand as a whole composed of integrated parts, which means there must be a common theme, or a theme that develops as the book progresses. If I had to guess right now, I'd say that theme is romantic love. This seems to be a key piece in each of the tales, and Dulcinea is always lurking somewhere in the main narrative.

[Tamara]

I have a somewhat different take on the novel.

Putting aside DQ’s particular vehicle of resuscitating chivalry, I want to consider his goals and not the means he chooses to achieve them.

Isn’t he arguing for a better world—one in which there are rules to govern behavior, in which we defend the defenseless, in which we try to do good toward our fellow human beings, in which our word means something, in which honor, decency, fairness come into play? Isn’t he consistently trying to make others conform to his vision of a better world? And isn’t he arguing that the phenomenal world is merely an illusion—that there is a reality that permeates the phenomenal world which we can’t readily perceive through our senses, i.e. that what looks like a windmill is not a windmill, at all?

I may be taking a giant leap here, but isn’t that the same thing that all the world’s major religions/traditions claim—i.e. that perceived reality is an illusion? That there is a reality that permeates the phenomenal world which we can’t perceive through our senses? Isn’t that also what Plato argued? And didn’t the Buddha claim the world we live in is but a dream?

To take this one step further, weren’t prophets/visionaries throughout history accused of being mad? Weren’t they all out of step with their time? Didn’t they present a vision of the world that was not in sync with their time and place? And weren’t they ridiculed, persecuted, and even put to death for insisting on that vision?

For me, that is one of the main attractions of this novel. It is about a man’s vision for a better world. That he chooses the rules of chivalry to implement his vision is incidental.

DQ argues that things are not what they appear to be, that he can see beyond the obvious external appearance of a thing. And he wants others to share his vision. He is eloquent and unequivocal in his beliefs. And he is convinced that if others share his vision, we can make this world a better place. It is the nature of his vision that is sacrosanct--not the vehicle.

A sort of related digression:

In his poem, Ode to a Nightingale, John Keats uses the song of the nightingale as the catalyst to go on a visionary journey back in time. As the song fades in the distance and Keats is drawn back to reality, he asks the question:

Was it a vison, or a waking dream?
Fled is that music--Do I wake or sleep?

In other words, am I awake now that I have lost that vision and find myself back in the real world? Or am I asleep now that I have lost that vision and am back in the real world?

I think one can ask the same question of DQ.

Sorry, for the length of this post. But I find so much I love about this novel that it is hard for me not to gush about it.

[Lia]

Thomas wrote: “the claim that DQ is the first novel (or first modern novel.) ”

That’s the only thing I remembered from my class that included DQ — the claim (and theories) was more about modernity than “novel” as a genre. The significance of it being prose as opposed to poetry, for example, has more to do with obscure theories of literary forms (Epic, tragedy...) reflecting a particular age in history (Hegel, Schlegel). The claims about modernity has a lot more to do with [inventing] individual subject, realism, identity, knowledge, belief, self-consciousness etc.

I think it’s funny discussing the specific problem of the story holding together (or not) and whether it qualifies as a novel based on this exact criteria with someone who looks like James Joyce 😁. I bet people wondered the same thing about calling Ulysses a novel! (Some indeed called it an Epic in prose.... which sounds like DQ to me.)

BTW, some theorists argued Descartes’s Meditations was the first modern novel, not DQ, as it dealt with the same set of “modern” attitudes but wayyyy before Cervantes. And of course he made that up but told it realistically. I thought that’s pretty funny.

[Thomas]

Tamara wrote: "Isn’t he arguing for a better world—one in which there are rules to govern behavior, in which we defend the defenseless,..."

I'm not sure if he ever really argues for this though. He believes it, surely, and he expects everyone else to believe it as well, but he doesn't argue for it, because it seems to him to be as plain as day. he thinks the honor and beauty of chivalry should be irresistible for everyone. DQ is an idealist, perhaps even a religious zealot, but he also believes that "faith without works is dead." (This is in his argument with the canon in Chapter 50; it is a direct quote from the Book of James.) But his "works" inflict needless suffering upon himself and others, and he explains his pains away as enchantment.

DQ certainly believes in a better world, but it seems to me that Cervantes turns this idealist vision upside down. It isn't a better world, and idealists who act upon their visions suffer for it. But suffering is inevitable, and DQ claims his suffering as a badge of honor in any case. Is all the suffering worth it? What does he gain from it, or despite it?

[Thomas]

Lia wrote: "I think it’s funny discussing the specific problem of the story holding together (or not) and whether it qualifies as a novel based on this exact criteria with someone who looks like James Joyce 😁."

Well, I'm not a literary critic and I know little to nothing about literary movements, but I find it hard to resist an exploration of this subject with someone who looks like Gregor Samsa.

That said, I think modernism has something to do with the revival or rejuvenation of a form of art. In this case, examples of the form to be revived are episodic "novels" like the Decameron or the Canterbury Tales, and maybe the picaresque novels of 16th century Spain like Lazarillo de Tormes. I don't think DQ is as extreme a modernisation of those forms as Ulysses is, but there is something new going on in DQ, and it would influence many novelists who came after it. But like I said, I think to be considered a novel it has to be more than a series of discrete tales. There should be some theme or element that binds it all together. One ring to rule them all. I'm not sure yet what it is though, or if it is at all.

[Tamara]

Thomas wrote: "But like I said, I think to be considered a novel it has to be more than a series of discrete tales. There should be some theme or element that binds it all together. One ring to rule them all. I'm not sure yet what it is though, or if it is at all. ."

Perhaps one thing to consider is character development. The interaction between DQ and SP is priceless. They transcend stock characters and develop and grow in their relationship and as individuals.

[David]

Tamara wrote: "Thomas wrote: "But like I said, I think to be considered a novel it has to be more than a series of discrete tales. There should be some theme or element that binds it all together. One ring to rule them all..."

Since I know it only by reputation and general description, maybe someone here could compare DQ to The Decameron by Giovanni Boccaccio (1313–1375). Both seem to be a collection of stories told within a main frame story. How are The Decameron stories linked thematically?

Maybe the stories are only loosely bound as moral tales, or morally though provoking on many aspects of life in the 1600's which are still relevant today with the frame story acting as comedy relief which sometimes comments, on these stories as well as itself, profoundly or otherwise.

[David]

It is debated whether or not Cervantes intended to write a second volume of DQ. If the second volume was not forthcoming, does the first volume have a proper end on its own?

DQ is in his own bed, but quite out of his senses to even realize it. His niece and housekeeper are afraid he will ride off again once his health improves. We are told that this does occur, but there are very little details. We are simply told

that the third time Don Quixote left home he went to Zaragoza and took part in some famous tourneys held in that city, and there things happened to him worthy of his valor and fine intelligence.

And we are also told by way of sonnet and eptitaph that DQ, Sancho, and Dulcinea died, eventually. But there are stated hopes that the third sally will be deciphered and published.

[Lia]

Thomas wrote: “...someone who looks like Gregor Samsa.”

Points taken, looks can be deceiving!

Thomas wrote: “That said, I think modernism has something to do with the revival or rejuvenation of a form of art. In this case, examples of the form to be revived are episodic "novels" like the Decameron or the Canterbury Tales, and maybe the picaresque novels of 16th century Spain like Lazarillo de Tormes. I don't think DQ is as extreme a modernisation of those forms as Ulysses is, but there is something new going on in DQ, and it would influence many novelists who came after it. But like I said, I think to be considered a novel it has to be more than a series of discrete tales. There should be some theme or element that binds it all together. One ring to rule them all. I'm not sure yet what it is though, or if it is at all. ”

That’s very well said; I suspect I said it badly: I didn’t think (and don’t think many theorists argued) DQ was a *Modernist* novel, only that the cliche was about DQ being the “first” modern novel, and not the first novel (hence why the Golden Ass was excluded but Descartes’ Meditation somehow was a contender.)

I think the main deviations from earlier prose literature has to do with a list of characters associated with what theorists (Ian Watt, Schelegel, George Lukacs, Ortega y Gasset, Mikhail Bakhtin etc) identified as modern attitudes. They looked back and retroactively decided DQ was the first to reflect them. I think it includes characteristics like realism (unlike Gawain’s Green Knight, once DQ lost an ear it stays gone,) like irony (your comment about embodying the very thing he criticized is apt), like being conscious of problems of knowledge and freedom and reason and rationality and inner mental life or subjectivity etc (hence Descartes’s realistic portrayal of his fireside meditations was a contender). Those makes it modern, but not modernist (and I agree Modernism ironically has more to do with revival of something older.)

You got this bug to sing more than the musical Grete! Don’t let me interrupt your music, I’m mostly here to lurk and listen.

[Rafael]

I think that the ending was good. I don't know what to expect from the second volume and why there's a second one..

[Tamara]

David wrote: "Since I know it only by reputation and general description, maybe someone here could compare DQ to The Decameron by Giovanni Boccaccio (1313–1375). Both seem to be a collection of stories told within a main frame story. How are The Decameron stories linked thematically? ..."

It's been years since I read it, so this comes from rusty memory.

Ten people run off to the countryside to escape the Black Death. They decide to entertain themselves by selecting a different king or queen each day to determine a theme for a story. Then each one has to tell a story related to the theme.

It has in common with DQ an overarching framework with different stories within it. But it differs from DQ in that the interaction between the characters is of secondary importance. They are the mouthpieces for the stories.

I think this is the opposite of what happens in DQ where the framework and interaction between the characters takes prominence. We get to see the characters grow, change, scheme, reveal their thoughts, etc. etc. None of that happens in the Decameron.

Again, this is from dusting the cobwebs in my mind. So it may not be totally accurate :)

[Kerstin]

Thomas wrote: "Tamara wrote: "Isn’t he arguing for a better world—one in which there are rules to govern behavior, in which we defend the defenseless,..."

I'm not sure if he ever really argues for this though. He believes it, surely, and he expects everyone else to believe it as well, but he doesn't argue for it, because it seems to him to be as plain as day."

This may be exactly the point, DQ has no need to argue for it. How does one look at the world? We all know people who think in completely different patterns that seem totally logical to them but to us it makes little sense. Often we lump them in the category of being hard to reason with. DQ reminded me of this time and again.

[Donnally]

Trying to put myself in the place of Cervantes, I think maybe these stories at the end of the book are there just because they were the type of stories people liked, and he wanted his book to be popular. Cervantes didn't know he was writing a great book. He probably thought his knight was good for a few laughs, but these romances were what people really wanted.

[Thomas]

Kerstin wrote: "How does one look at the world? We all know people who think in completely different patterns that seem totally logical to them but to us it makes little sense. Often we lump them in the category of being hard to reason with. DQ reminded me of this time and again. "

I think we sometimes classify those people as "eccentric." We tolerate them as long as they pose no threat, and sometimes we admire them for the strength of their convictions or dedication to a way of life.

DQ is an honorable and morally upright man, and I think we admire him for that. We can even forgive him when he steps over the line and hurts others (or himself), because we understand why he does it. I suppose we have all had our quixotic moments in life, when we decide to act on an idealistic vision. Sometimes these decisions work out; more often, they don't. But we know, at least a little bit, how DQ feels, and when we laugh at him we are also laughing at ourselves.

[Kerstin]

Thomas wrote: "when we laugh at him we are also laughing at ourselves."

I like that!

[Rhonda]

Chapter 49 amplifies an issue about which I have been thinking from the beginning, which is to ask just how Don Quixote is mad, if indeed he is at all. If he is not, however, we must ask ourselves again just what this affectation is. We have discussed this in previous chapters, but this present argument seems key to the issue.

The canon says to Don Q:

Is it possible, Señor, that the grievous and idle reading of books of chivalry could have so affected your grace that it has unbalanced your judgment and made you believe that you are enchanted, along with other things of this nature, which are as far from being true as truth is from lies?

The canon has been, no doubt, persuaded by the fact that Don Q has had his very rational states recently, in fact giving discourse which was very fine and rational indeed. In addition, he is heavily discouraged to be riding in a cage and the canon seizes the moment to attempt to shock Don Q back to the reality which most people understand as sanity.
He continues by saying,

Return to the bosom of good sense....and devote your intellectual talents to another kind of reading that redounds to the benefit of your conscience and the increase of your honor.

This is quite an excellent bit of encouragement and, one thinks, that if he is ever going to change himself, he will do it now. Instead Don Quixote replies:

It seems to me, Señor, that the intention of your grace's discourse has been to persuade me that there have been no knights errant in the world, and that all the books of chivalry are false, untrue, harmful, and of no value to the nation...

The canon says that this is precisely his argument. I should expect that a great many readers would agree with him, but Don Quixote does not. In fact Don Q recites a great many daring deeds of famous men, both fictional and real, but averring that each of them is authentic. It is an interesting argument, as I see it, because although at first glance, while one is disposed to suppose he is wrong, it tells us a great deal about the issue of reality in our minds. How is it that we believe something to have been real as opposed to fiction in our own belief system? Was Galileo real? Was Achilles or Homer real? What do we use to convince ourselves of what reality is?
Russell once posited that we had no way of proving that we were not created five minutes ago, complete with memories of our own history. While the present argument is not as terrifying as that, it is somewhat like it in that we have lived trying to decide what really is history and what is fiction. It would be easy to use Troy as an example or many examples, one being the existence of Caesarea, given in the writings of Josephus, because there were periods of time in which many of those things which were written were just considered legends. One might also question as well whether the gods helped individuals or armies or whether God, Himself, aided or hindered the Jews. I state these things not as absolute proof of any kind but to leave the question open-ended, but with the proviso that Cervantes is making a point about reality as well as poking fun.

The canon was astonished when he heard Don Quixote's mixture of truth and falsehood and saw how well-informed he was regarding everything related to and touching on the exploits of knight errantry...

The odd thing about the canon's response is that he, himself, involves fictional issues of Archbishop Turpin and the details of the romances. He combines El Cid and Bernardo del Carpio when claiming reality, but says that perhaps not all deeds attributed to each actually occurred.
The canon's argument is hardly new in this book as the priest himself early on seemed to believe that some of Don Quixote's books were, if not real, then very close to being true and hence valuable. One ought to ask whether we are talking about the degree to which our minds are bent towards behavior which deviates from our harsh daily reality. In summation, it would seem that Don Quixote's madness offends those who maintain that they are sane merely by the ways in which these many fictions are applied in our lives.