Part 2: Dedication - Chapter IX

[Thomas]

Does Part 2 strike you as different from Part 1, or does it seem like a simple continuation?

We've already discussed how DQ has been called the first "modern novel," but I think the evidence for that is much stronger here at the beginning of Part 2. First, there is the matter of fictional characters learning that they are themselves the subject of a history, which makes the narrative sound strangely true to life.

Next, there is Chapter 5, where the translator excuses Sancho's more sophisticated speech and thought patterns as "apocryphal." What does this mean? And why does Cervantes allow Sancho to step out of character?

And speaking of Sancho, I found this comment by the priest in Chapter 2 interesting:

"May God help them," said the priest, "and let us be on the alert: we'll see where all the foolishness in this knight and squire will lead, because it seems as if both were made from the same mold, and that the madness of the master, without the simplicity of the servant, would not be worth anything."

Is this true? I hesitate to say yes or no, but it makes me wonder if the story of Don Quixote could truly be told without Sancho. (It also reminds me once again of Kafka's theory that Sancho is actually the author of The Ingenious Gentleman, Don Quixote of La Mancha.)

Is there more to Sancho than appears at first glance?

[Tamara]

Thomas wrote: "Is there more to Sancho than appears at first glance? ..."

I think so.

What I'm seeing so far in Part 2 is Sancho evolving as a character and becoming more adept at understanding DQ's way of thinking and using that knowledge to direct DQ's actions.

When they first embark on their adventures in Part 1, they were polar opposites with Sancho pretty much acting as a down-to-earth foil for DQ's ravings. DQ called the shots and Sancho just plodded along.

But it seems as if there is a bit of a shift in Part 2. They're beginning to talk the same language and have come to rely on each other. It's almost as if the balance of power has shifted toward a more egalitarian relationship with Sancho occasionally taking the lead and DQ content to follow.

The interplay between Sancho and DQ in the opening sections of Part 2 are an absolute delight. DQ continues to correct Sancho's malapropisms but Sancho isn't as apologetic about them as he was in Part 1, perhaps suggesting he has increased in stature and confidence.

[Rafael]

I would say that maybe Sancho's speech was because we were reading a "translation" but he keeps making mistakes so it's more probable that Tamara's statement is the right reason for it and I prefer her statement than mine. It's more worthy of Sancho.

[David]

I thought the discussion between Sancho and his wife was interesting. It seemed to me like the parts of DQ and Sancho shifted respectively to Sancho and his wife. As DQ called Sancho names and corrected his speach, so Sancho does now to his wife. Sancho calls her an imbecile and even corrects her at one point:

“Resolved is what you should say, Teresa,” said Sancho, “not revolved.”

It seems Sancho is starting to adopt some of DQ's coarser manners and less of the good. He is not interacting with his wife in a chivalrous manner.

[Rhonda]

Tamara wrote: "But it seems as if there is a bit of a shift in Part 2. They're beginning to talk the same language and have come to rely on each other. It's almost as if the balance of power has shifted toward a more egalitarian relationship with Sancho occasionally taking the lead and DQ content to follow. "

There is no doubt that Don Quixote seems to have made a serious impression on Sancho's character. Don Quixote is drawn closer to Sancho, in fact, because of some of the things which Sancho knows.

...but Don Quixote, fearful that Sancho would blurt out and disclose a quantity of malicious nonsense and touch on points that would not redound to his credit, called to him and made the two women be quiet and allow him to enter,

More, it is apparent to all as the barber observes the following:

...but I am not as astounded by the madness of the knight as I am by the simplicity of the squire, who has as much faith in the story of the insula that I don't believe all the disappointments imaginable will ever get it out of his head.

When Sancho tries to argue that Don Q lured him away, Don Q says, together we shared a single fortune and a single fate... Don Q begins to quote the Latin proverb which states that when the head aches, all the members ache, but Sancho interrupts him stating that he only understand his own language. While indeed he does understand his own language, as it were, from this point on Sancho refers to himself as a member. I believe that this is probably meant to be a sexual joke, but even if one cannot see this, it seems clear that the two understand and use the term in different ways.
When Don Q sends Sancho to discover what the townspeople think of him and his exploits, (and here it gives one pause to understand how any stories have traveled this quickly, especially as he has not been long from the episode at the inn,) Sancho seems to further bond with Don Q concerning how his notoriety is not quite as glamorous as Don Q might have hoped.
Perhaps the most amusing episodes are Sancho's arguments with his wife. When Sancho corrects her language, she sounds much like Sancho and Don Q, but Sancho argues his way into persevering with what he has started. This introduces the character of Bachelor Samson Oak Tree, a subject which rightfully deserves a separate post. Nevertheless it is his intervention which, inadvertently, cements the bond Sancho and Don Q have begun.

[Rhonda]

The issue of the written history by Sir Hamid Eggplant now generates some interesting difficulties, all, no doubt, intentional, but disturbing to the reader. In chapter 3, Don Q ponders the issue himself.

...though he could not persuade himself that such a history existed, for the blood of the enemies he had slain was not yet dry on the blade of his sword and his chivalric exploits were already in print,

Earlier he is somewhat despondent that a Moor is even writing his history because, ...one could not expect truth from the Moors, because all of them are tricksters, liars, and swindlers.

Leaving aside the greater issue of the metafictional dialectic between the Moor and Cervantes himself, for the moment, (as we may guess it will show itself again on more than one future occasion,) the reader ought to wonder just how this Moor was able to gather this information, most of it from isolated sources, and write it down AND publish it in anonymity in a short period of time.

I began to consider that this so-called Moor was someone who had been privy to at least some of these events. However there appears to have been only one person who knew Arabic,,,and even then, she did not know Spanish. The idea of Don Q's history, setting aside of the question of reliability in narration which Cervantes constantly wants us to question, appears that it must have been gathered by second or third parties who knew the tales from someone other than Don Q or Sancho. Besides this, neither of these could have given the existent narration. That makes for a distinctly unreliable story, I think, by necessity. Imagine, for example, relating the story of Don Q and the sheep as told from a third person and you can see what the issues are.

In conclusion, I suggest that this entire idea of unreliable narration, perhaps necessary for Cervantes and writers of the age, seems fraught with a great number of improbabilities.

[Thomas]

Tamara wrote: "TWhat I'm seeing so far in Part 2 is Sancho evolving as a character and becoming more adept at understanding DQ's way of thinking and using that knowledge to direct DQ's actions.."

That makes a lot of sense to me. Sancho has seen that DQ will not alter his perspective, at least when chivalry comes into play, so he is learning how to manipulate him. He started by mimicking (or attempting to mimic) DQ's speech patterns, and by Part 2 chapt. 9 he is playing into DQ's romantic Dulcinea fantasy by suggesting that he be his go-between, enabling DQ to keep his distance and maintain his idealistic vision. He's enabling DQ's madness in this way, but maybe he doesn't see an alternative. But I wonder... why does Sancho do this? Does he really believe he will get a governorship out of humoring a madman?

[Bryan--The Bee’s Knees]

I finally caught back up last night--though I've only read the dedication so far. I remember reading this about thirty + years ago, and thinking there was a quite a difference from one part to the other, that Part II did not have the same kind of charm that Part I did, so it will be interesting to see if that opinion holds up.

This time through, so far, I thought some of the nested storylines bordered on the edge of tedious, but I thought the ending was great. Especially when Sancho got home and the first thing his wife asked him was, 'how's the donkey?'

I'm hoping to keep up a little better with part II

[Thomas]

Bryan "goes on a bit too long" wrote: "Especially when Sancho got home and the first thing his wife asked him was, 'how's the donkey?'
."

This was great. Part 2 is self-referential in a lot of ways, and some of them are hilarious. Thanks for pointing this out.

[David]

Once again the details of reality tread upon romance in the case of the poem for Dulcinea:

The bachelor responded that although he was not one of the famous poets of Spain, who, as people said, did not number more than three and a half, he would be sure to write the lines, although he found a great difficulty in their composition because the number of letters in her name was seventeen,

Not only does reality not conform to "forms", but Cervantes manages to gets in a cheap shot at Spanish poetry. And what is half a poet?

[David]

Rhonda wrote: "The issue of the written history by Sir Hamid Eggplant now generates some interesting difficulties, all, no doubt, intentional . . .the reader ought to wonder just how this Moor was able to gather this information, most of it from isolated sources, and write it down AND publish it in anonymity in a short period of time."

I think, among the many other stories we are being exposed to in this book, there are mainly two. First there is DQ and his sallies, and second there is the story of writing the book, which seems to me as humorous as the first, from the mysterious Moorish Eggplant, to all of the improbabilities, which the characters themselves are beginning to point out. Of all the talk of true history, between the two stories, the one of the writing of DQ feigns the most to be the truest, The fact it is just more humorous fiction is great fun.

Cervantes imagines a writer, himself perhaps, who imagines a fictional historian to write a true history about another fictional character who imagines he is a knight errant who lives his life based on chivalry romances taken as true history; I am probably missing a level or two. The improbabilities remind me of the Highlights magazine's "What's wrong with this picture" feature. This is probably not a book for people that dismiss an entire historical movie because one of the Union extras forgot to take his Rolex off or because they spot a VW driving around in the background behind the Circus Maximus (which is a fictional blooper of the 1959 Ben Hur)

[David]

Chapter VI
Regarding what transpired between Don Quixote and his niece and housekeeper, which is one of the most important chapters in the entire history

DQ provides an explanation of his beliefs and actions to his niece and housekeeper. Is that the reason this chapter is described as one of the most important chapters in the entire history?

[Thomas]

David wrote: "
DQ provides an explanation of his beliefs and actions to his niece and housekeeper. Is that the reason this chapter is described as one of the most important chapters in the entire history? "

I think it's curious that DQ never really defends his belief system. He hasn't become a knight errant on the basis of his beliefs; he believes what he believes because he is a knight errant. He was born into it, as he explains in Chapter VI, because he was "born under the influence of the planet Mars."

...it will be useless to try to persuade me that I do not wish what heaven wishes, fortune ordains, reason demands, and, above all, what my will desires; for knowing as I do the countless travails that accompany knight errantry, I also know the infinite benefits that can be attained through it; I know that the path of virtue is very narrow, and the road of wickedness is broad and spacious; I know that their endings and conclusions are different, because the expansive, spacious road of wickedness ends in death, and the road of virtue, so narrow and difficult, ends in life, not the life that ends, but life everlasting...

And then he quotes the "great Castilian poet" Garcilaso de la Vega, when he has himself just quoted the gospel of Matthew (7:13) almost verbatim. His niece knows there is no arguing with DQ at this point: "he knows everything, he understands everything," and DQ agrees with her.

DQ can't be persuaded by an argument, with reason or philosophy, that he is not what he is because his self-identity is a matter of faith and conviction. It doesn't stand on anything. His niece tried to argue that to be a knight errant he had to have the right lineage, but DQ is a self-made man. That's an important point. Maybe that's why it's one of the most important chapters?

[Gary]

David wrote: "I think, among the many other stories we are being exposed to in this book, there are mainly two. First there is DQ and his sallies, and second there is the story of writing the book ..."

Sorry I've been MIA - the summer brings too many distractions.

I’ve been struck during this reading of DQ about how self-consciously literary it is, by which I mean Cervantes’ narrator refers to and comments on the book’s background and “sources,” its printers, on its reception in the world and its readers, on imitations, and on its critics - any or all of which may be fictional - or not. Whether actual or imagined is less important than what David has called “the story of writing the book.” This literary-ness is yet another engaging aspect of DQ. As for the inconsistencies even impossibilities in the chronology of this thread that others have noted, I find a “willing suspension of disbelief” is as in order as it is for other threads in DQ.