El Quijote apócrifo

by Alonso Fernández de Avellaneda

La continuación apócrifa del "Quijote" cervantino, escrito por quien firma como Alonso Fernández de Avellaneda, y publicado en la segunda mitad de 1614, ha conocido una interesante difusión en Europa y América. Los problemas críticos que esta continuación plantea son de primer orden y afectan a distintos factores de la producción literaria: desde la transmisión editorial a través de sus distintos procesos, desde el manuscrito al volumen impreso, hasta el establecimiento de la identidad de Avellaneda, que ha sido atribuida a casi todos los autores del Siglo de Oro, desde, rizando el rizo, el propio Cervantes hasta Lope de Vega, Quevedo, Tirso de Molina, Ruiz de Alarcón o Cristóbal Suárez de Figueroa. Esta edición conjetura cómo la obra de este último resulta ser mucho más próxima a las características textuales de "Avellaneda" que la de cualquiera de los demás nombres propuestos. La edición aporta, además, el nombre de otros dos autores, hasta ahora no contemplados por la crítica, que presentan un porcentaje muy elevado de identidad de usos léxicos con el texto de Avellaneda.

Genres: Fiction, Spain, Classics, Spanish Literature

576 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1614

About the author

Alonso Fernández de Avellaneda is pseudonym of a man who wrote a sequel to Cervantes’ Don Quixote. The identity of Fernández de Avellaneda has been the subject of many theories, but there is no consensus on who he was. One theory holds that Avellaneda’s work was a collaboration by friends of Lope de Vega.

Critical opinion has generally held Avellaneda’s work in low regard, and Cervantes himself is highly critical of it in his own Part 2. However, it is possible that Cervantes would never have completed his own continuation were it not for the stimulus Avellaneda provided. Throughout Part 2 of Cervantes' book Don Quixote meets characters who know of him from their reading of his Part 1, but in Chapter 59 Don Quixote first learns of Avellaneda’s Part 2, and is outraged since it portrays him as being no longer in love with Dulcinea del Toboso. As a result of this Don Quixote decides not to go to Zaragoza to take part in the jousts, as he had planned, because such an incident features in that book. From then on Avellaneda’s work is ridiculed at frequent intervals; Don Quixote even meets one of its characters, Don Alvaro Tarfe, and gets him to swear an affidavit that he has never met the true Don Quixote before.

Reviews

[Kalliope · Rating 4 out of 5]

CECI N’EST PAS DON QUICHOTTE...

Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra published the first part of his Don Quijote in 1605 (DQ1). In the last chapter he promised that a second part would follow and that Don Quijote would leave his village again and go to the town of Zaragoza to participate in a joust. He finished his book with a quote from Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso:

Forsi altro canterà con miglior plectio.
perhaps another will sing in a better style

Cervantes had already promised a second part to his first work La Galatea, which was published in 1585, but the sequel never appeared. His DQ1 enjoyed tremendous and unexpected success but Cervantes did not set himself immediately to continue it. Instead he published in 1613 his collection of twelve novellas, Novelas ejemplares, in which the Spanish word novela did not as yet refer to a novel but to the Italianate genre novella.

And then in 1614 a continuation of Don Quijote was published with the same title but written by a certain Alonso Fernández de Avellaneda. It was also successful.

Cervantes then published his second part just one year later, in 1615 (DQ2), changing slightly the title The first uses the term Hidalgo, a nobleman, while in the second one he has opted for Caballero, a Knight. The other work on which he had been working in parallel, Los trabajos de Pérsiles y Segismunda, historia setentrional., was published posthumously in 1617, since he died in April 1616.

Very few people bother now to read Avellaneda’s work (DQA), which is a shame since it has its own interest and since it also projects further light onto Cervantes’ second part. Although Cervantes most probably had written a major part of his work by 1614, the fake Quijote must have angered him because he geared his sequel as a reply to the fake one. Directly and indirectly.

Writing continuations of previously existing works was done regularly during the late medieval times and the renaissance. Ariosto continued Boiardo’s Orlando (granted, the Duke of Ferrara commissioned him to do so). In Spain, the long series of Amadís (often mentioned in Don Quijote) was written by several authors, and La Celestina was also composed by Fernando de Rojas continuing an anonymous first Act. But this time it was different. Don Quijote, for its success and its novelty, was perceived as something different. In this aspect also, it was a ‘modern’ book. Avellaneda’s decision to continue it was clearly an affront.

And if that was not clear enough, Avellaneda in his Prologue spelled out his attack on Cervantes. Not only does he deride Cervantes’s literary abilities, but attacks him personally for being old, for having no friends and for his damaged hand.

Apart from the shock and rejection that such a prologue inspires in the modern reader, reading Avellaneda’s version is very disconcerting. It presents itself as a direct continuation of Cervantes’ work, since the book begins with Part Five (DQ1 had Four Parts) and states that six months have passed since the end of the previous volume and often makes references to the various episodes of the first volume. Many elements are then the same. Expectedly, the main characters, Don Quijote and Sancho Panza, occupy the centre stage, but others disappear, such as the niece and the Duenna, while new ones appear, the most striking being Don Álvaro de Tarfe. So striking is that Tarfe that Cervantes incorporated him in his second part. Of the absences the most baffling, indeed upsetting, is Dulcinea. In Avellaneda, Quijote is no longer known as the Knight of the Mournful Countenance, and has become the Dis-Enamoured Knight. Not that Dulcinea herself marked a strong presence in the first Don Quijote, but she was an essential part of the nature of our Hidalgo. Errand Knights have to have an unattainable beloved in their ideals that inspire and drive them towards their heroic deeds and adventures.

Unsettling are particularly the very familiar characters. Both Quijote and Sancho have different personalities. The charm is gone. Quijote in his the graceful lunacy has transformed into an absurd and dangerous madman; and Sancho with his frank simplicity has become a scurrilous brute. The different characterization drives them to very different destinies to the ones designed by Cervantes later. Quijote is locked up in a madhouse and Sancho takes a position in court as a buffoon.

And yet, there are laudable aspects. The plot is very rich in adventures, and although it also incorporates a couple of unconnected stories, the novel develops more Quijote & Sancho episodes than Cervantes did in his DQ1. As DQ1 and DQ2 are generally read consecutively it is easy to forget that they were two books written ten years apart. DQA then has to be seen with only DQ1 in mind. Since in my reading I am following the chronology of their publication, I welcomed the wider display of purely Quixotic adventures in Avellaneda. The episodes that take place in the melon field and especially the one involving the theatre group in Alcalá were very funny. Cervantes incorporated such a troupe in his DQ2 also.

Indeed the theatrical is the characteristic that stands out most clearly in Avellaneda’s version. Already in the Prologue he states that the whole historia of Don Quijote is a comedy, and may be that is why he has structured his book in three sections, as if they were three Acts, the standard theatre format at the time. Theatrical tradition may also account for the more stereotyped characters and greater tone of buffoonery. Several of the episodes involve disguising; dialogues are rich; and playing with words to elicit a prompt response abound too.

The theatrical dynamism is however dampened by numerous sections in which the language is less fluid and more convoluted than Cervantes’. It is loaded with erudite references and a profusion of literary references I used an excellent edition with a wealth of notes, which both helped and encumbered at times the reading, but then the objective of reading this book is precisely as a document that helps in understanding better Cervantes work. Avellaneda was a very well read man. He knew his Bible; was comfortable with the Classical authors; had explored Italian literature thoroughly; and knew what was happening in the Spanish literary circles of his time. For example, he makes a reference to Historia de la vida del Buscón, which was not published until 1626, but was circulating in manuscript form.

And this takes us to the identity of Alonso Fernández de Santaella. Who was he? It is still not known. We do not even know if Cervantes, the reader for whom the novel was written in the first place, had identified the author. As can be expected many scholars have devoted their time trying to identify him. Several candidates have been suggested. The main clue is that it was someone who had felt offended by Cervantes. He states so in his Prologue. Avellaneda denounces that Cervantes has insulted him and someone else who is unequivocally identified as Lope de Vega.

One of the most prestigious 'Cervantists' in Spain, Martín de Riquer, thought it could have been Jerónimo de Passamonte, a writer and soldier who had served as model for Cervantes’ Ginés de Pasamonte, one of the galley slaves, and he published his thesis in this book Cervantes, Passamonte y Avellaneda. Passamonte could not have liked the dark light in which Cervantes had included him. Another major proposition is that it was Lope de Vega or someone in his circle. The allusion in the Prologue, plus countless references, or parallelisms, or terms, together with the very literary and theatrical baggage found in the text, seem to construct a smoking gun pointing at the playwright's circles.

Although I approached this in relation to Cervantes, and although it is difficult not to take a protective attitude and jump to Cervantes side and vituperate Avellaneda, it is a shame that not more attention is paid to this book. I enjoyed reading it.

Anyway, I continue my course and when reading DQ2 I am amused at how Cervantes took the insults and the provocation. He responded, replied and rebuked Avellaneda. For example, although he had announced at the end of his first part that the next exit would take Quijote to Zaragoza, which is what Avellaneda does, Cervantes decides to change the course of his character and take him to Barcelona--city where Cervantes had gone when trying, unsuccessfully, to accompany the Count of Lemos, the dedicatee of his book-- to Naples.


I am of the firm belief that it is partly thanks to Avellaneda that Cervantes racked his brains and produced an even better book in his Second Part of Don Quijote.


**********
Image heading this is by Octavio Campo

[César · Rating 4 out of 5]

4'5

Que el hecho de ser apócrifo y poco o nada leído y apenas mencionado no le eche a usted para atrás a la hora de acercar el morro al libro. Bien divertido resulta leerlo y extraño encontrar un Quijote y un Sancho diferentes a los cervantinos, dignos en todo caso de sus inspiradores.
La historia de la obra de Avellaneda y su relación con la de Cervantes hacen aún más grande la creación del alcalaíno.

[Sentimental Surrealist]

The unauthorized sequel to Don Quixote's first book, which Cervantes shits all over during Don Quixote's second book. It's allegedly terrible and impossible to find anymore, but it is interesting as an early example of fanfiction, if nothing else. I like to imagine that it's full of terrible spelling and grammar errors, ridiculous logical inconsistencies, and homoerotic tension between Don Quixote and Sancho Panza that spills over into wild uninhibited and hilariously rendered sex every few pages. I guess I can only be disappointed by Avellaneda's real sequel now.

[Paula · Rating 4 out of 5]

Avellaneda no es Cervantes, pero no escribe tan mal. Es un escritor más del siglo de oro.
Obviando la sátira que se hace de los personajes cervantinos, es una novela bastante interesante. Lamentablemente la crítica se centra más en averiguar la identidad del autor que de estudiar los parámetros culturales del texto.

[Pablo S. Martín · Rating 5 out of 5]

No sera la secuela escrita por mano propia del gigantesco don Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, pero que es divertida, entretenida y excelente obra por si sola, nadie lo puede negar.
Tanto es así, que debemos a esta obra, ingeniosa y, tal vez ligeramente, mal intencionada, a que don Cervantes se tomase su tiempo para terminar de escribir la verdadera segunda parte, y tengamos así el Don Quijote de la Mancha completo que ha hecho historia desde entonces.

No se puede saber quién fue Alonso Fernández de Avellaneda al día de hoy, solo se puede conjeturar.
Aún así, esta obra cumple, a tal punto, que me atrevo a decir que de no haber existido jamás la segunda parte del Quijote, está obra estaría en la literatura universal, siendo reconocida como un hecho de gran calidad.
Por fortuna, esta obra dió motivación suficiente a Cervantes para terminar la obra de su vida, relegando a esta, a una simple y mera curiosidad.

Lamento decir que no es una simple curiosidad; el autor de este Quijote Apócrifo, creó de la nada una continuación que no solo podría pasar por verdadera, sino que sin otra referencia que la primera parte escrita por Cervantes, inventó de la nada una novela moderna como solo se había hecho una sola vez antes.
La obra es en sí más irreverente que la obra original, abundando aún más en insultos y ridiculeces de Sancho, al punto de llegar a ser una obra rabelesiana, como pocas hay allí afuera.
Menos seria incluso cuando quiere serlo, menos divertida cunado podría haber sido, pero aún así gigantesca en ideas e intenciones.

Doy gracias a quien quiera que haya sido el autor de esta obra, el tal Alonso Fenández de Avellaneda, ya que es gracias a él que existe no solo esta obra, silo el Quijote como lo conocemos.

[Breaking_Bad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kontynuację losów Don Kichota i Sancho Pansy Avellaneda wydał zanim Cervantes napisał drugi tom "Przemyślnego szlachcica Don Kichota z Manchy". Rycerz Smętnego Oblicza zmienia miano na Rycerza Gardzącego Miłością i razem ze swoim giermkiem ponownie rusza na poszukiwanie przygód.
Don Kichot u Cervantesa, mimo wyraźnych oznak pomieszania umysłu, był postacią niejednoznaczną i miewał przebłyski normalności. Avellandeda zrobił z niego całkowitego wariata, który nie potrafi inaczej mówić, jak tylko frazami zaczerpniętymi z przeczytanych ksiąg rycerskich, a wszystkich którzy mu się sprzeciwiają wyzywa na pojedynki.
Podobnie Sancho Pansa jest tu postacią bardziej grubiańską. Zadziwia wszystkich swoją głupotą i obżarstwem. Ten "kwiat obłędnego giermkostwa" jest bardziej komiczny niż u Cervantesa i co chwila rzuca teksty typu: "(...) proszę bardzo; mogę nawet i pościć, jeśli tylko trzy razy dziennie dadzą mi jeść przyzwoicie", albo "mam nadzieję, że za trzy i pół reala to przynajmniej wino w dzbanie chrzczone nie będzie, a może i królik za życia postów nie przestrzegał".

[Pablo]

From Don Q's prologue to the second part:

I think you will say that I am showing great restraint and am keeping well within the bounds of modesty, knowing that one must not add afflictions to the afflicted, and the affliction of this gentleman is undoubtedly very great, for he does not dare to appear openly in the light of day but hides his name and conceals his birthplace, as if he had committed some terrible act of treason against the crown. If you ever happen to meet him, tell him for me that I do not consider myself offended, for I know very well what the temptations of the devil are, and one of the greatest is to give a man the idea that he can compose and publish a book [...]

-- Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra

[Javier Armendáriz · Rating 5 out of 5]

No está al nivel de Cervantes, pero estas versiones más toscas de Quijote y Sancho me sacaron un par de sinceras carcajadas.

[Rudi · Rating 1 out of 5]

Dette er ikke Cervantes sin Don Quijote-bok, men en "falsk" oppfølger skrevet etter første bind av en mystisk "Avellaneda". Cervantes kom senere med sin egen oppfølger til Quijote (som i Norge omtrent alltid gis ut sammen med første bind), hvor han blant annet svarer på Avellaneda sin bok. Derfor valgte jeg å ta en pause fra Cervantes sin bok etter første bind for å lese denne. Det viste seg å være overraskende vanskelig å få tak i boka, da den aldri var oversatt til norsk. Heldigvis var det en dansk oversettelse som ble gitt ut i 2006, og som virker nokså godt gjennomført. Alternativet var noen eldre engelske oversettelser.

Det mest interessante i boka er nok forordet, hvor Avellandeda angriper Cervantes, samtidig som han bruker en del krefter på å rettferdiggjør at han selv viderefører verket. Han peker på hvordan tidligere forfattere har skrevet videre på mytologiske historier (og andre eksempel), og det hele blir et slags tidlig forsvar av fanfiction.

Når han så kommer i gang med selve historien, blir det raskt veldig kjedelig. Han viderefører de delen av Quijote #1 som kanskje er minst spennende, det vil si den rene slapsticken. Særlig virker han opptatt av Sancho, og hvor dum og tomsindig han er. Dette blir etterhvert svært kjedelig. Det er noen fine små sekvenser her og der, men de er få og langt mellom. En god del av boka er en gjeng som forteller historier om andre ting, noe som på et vis blir et fint avbrekk, men heller ikke veldig spennende.

Dette er ei bok som jeg først og fremst vil anbefale fordi den er interessant. Det er mer spennende å lese om boka enn å lese den. Jeg har derfor vært verdens mest halvhjerta leser, og brukt omtrent hele året på å komme meg gjennom den. Jeg håper bare ikke at bind to av Quijote blir kjedeliger å lese av den grunn.

[Jettie H. · Rating 1 out of 5]

1) “ Miguel de Cervantes ….. creaba una novela original,” dice, pero no escribió el DQ!
a) Cide Hamete Benengeli is the writer in the DQ, not Miguel de Cervantes. Take the name out of the first name (this is called steganography ): remains Siren.
b) The spurious DQ: Avellaneda minus Miguel de Cervantes I Saavedra = Siren II
II can mean the second book written by the Siren, phonetically.
II can mean too, also written by this group.
Siren is the abbreviation of the Sireniacals, a group of the best writers in London at that time, in other words: the Fraternity of the Sireniacal Gentlemen, they met every first Friday of the month in the Mere-maide in Breadstreet.

2) “publicaba en 1614 El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de La Mancha,” dice, pero por favor, cuando cite, hágalo correctamente. En ninguna parte, ni en el DQI, ni en el DQII, ni en el Avellaneda se menciona La mancha. En mi libro puede leer:
“The area where the story takes place was called Mancha, but Don Quixote was not named after La Mancha with a capital letter -L- (47): that indicates an administrative area of modern Spain. Previously, Mancha was only an administrative whole that remained under the control of the Taifa (kingdom) of Toledo. The oldest recorded mention of the toponym ‘Mancha de Montearagón’ is from 1237. No capital letter for the region called Mancha, a plain where mainly spawning grass grew, a dry grass species, which the Arabs called manχa: so, Don Quixote of the Manxa, of the flounder! In 1691, so 75 years after the books on Don Quixote, a region has been established called La Mancha with Toledo as capital. I wouldn’t be surprised if this name has caused a furore thanks to the books about Don Quixote and that Spain therefore decided to call the area that way and elevate it to a real official region. Of course there will be another joke behind the name: Don Quixote is a Knight of the Mancha. It is no coincidence that at the time the word Mancha corresponded to the name of the English Channel, which is called in French “ la Manche”, the sleeve. It has been named as a metaphor for the estuary between France and England. Don Quixote is therefore both (land)knight of the grass and (see)knight of the channel: Don Quixote of the Manche. Throughout the Spanish first part the name is always written as Don-Quixote de la Mancha, in the second part also Don Quixote de la Mancha. Never Don Quixote de La Mancha.. that is the mistake every translator makes. By the way, why translate from a translation?
And the third meaning, the one with a smile: la mancha is Spanish for the spot, the stain, the dirt-mark.

3) “One theory holds that Avellaneda’s work was a collaboration by friends of Lope de Vega,” dice, pero sé que se equivoca. En mi libro: “the deciphering of the Don Quixote & the unmasking of Avellaneda”2022, una traducción de mi libro de 2015, puede leer en la parte posterior del libro:

The original “Don Quixote” is an English book. The Spanish translations appeared in 1605 and 1615, much earlier than the original English publications in 1612 and 1620. Between these two periods, in 1614, a “false” Don Quixote was published under the name Avellaneda. The original English text was never released.

Francis Bacon was the brain behind the three books of Don Quixote; he wrote the part of the hero.
Ben Jonson took on the role of Sancho Panza, John Donne wrote the poems, “the two friends” Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher were assigned the task of writing loose stories. These authors made use of the library owned by Robert Cotton.
The printer, William Stansby, inserted concealed clues into the text, in order for the reader to be able to draw conclusions…

The Spanish translations were carried out by Thomas Shelton (DQI + DQII) and James Mabbe (the “bogus” DQ).
Miguel de Cervantes was just a poor Spanish writer who had sold his name to survive. He had told his life-story to the English, so that it could be processed into the DQ.
Ten people, sworn to secrecy about their collaboration in the writing of Don Quixote. Now in this book, after four hundred years, clarity is given as to the “who”, “what” and “why” of all this secrecy.

4) “However, it is possible that Cervantes would never have completed his own continuation were it not for the stimulus Avellaneda provided,” you write, but you don’t understand that this is the game!! Besides you better write instead of Cervantes.. the writer..

5) “Avellaneda’s Part 2,” you write.. but Avellaneda dice: el segundo tomo.. es una diferencia, porque así deja sitio para continuar la seguanda parte al original..

6) “Don Quixote even meets one of its characters, Don Alvaro Tarfe,” you say. That’s the pseudonym of Robert Cotton. May be you can figure it out yourself? You have read that “These authors made use of the library owned by Robert Cotton”..
Bueno, lo explicaré: Cotton in Spanish is álgodon ( so he had really ‘don’ at the end):
Don Álvaro Tarfe menos Algodón; rests -go- ( in those days -goe- but you do not pronounce the -e- that’s why you can erase that letter) You goe – in Spanish is Usted va: just erase go for va.. leaves us “ro Tarfe, this is an anagram of O FRATER.. The name frater means brot(h)er; this is an anagram of Robert: O(h) Robert Cotton = an anagram of don Álvaro Tarfe. ( In steganography you can join letters which are mute, or add them)

7) Para terminar le indicaré de dónde viene el libro de
Avellaneda: The Avellaneda begins: ‘El sabio Alisolán, historiador no menos moderno que verdadero..’
If there is an indication then it is in this name again: El sa… BIO ALISOLÁN is an anagram of O(H) ISLA ALBIÓN. Albion was the name England had in antiquity, but more or less in a humoristic way, ‘you insolent Albion!
Ahora tiene algunas respuestas.. tengo más de 100 enigmas decifrados, pero sé que “no hay que nombrar la soga en casa del ahogado” como dice Don Quixote, aunque a nadie le interesa..

Jettie H. van den Boom

[Javier · Rating 3 out of 5]

Avellaneda desdibuja los personajes cervantinos para acabar con ellos de la forma más deshonrosa posible. Don Quijote pasa de ser un personaje que modula su locura según le convenga, a un loco por completo. El Sancho apócrifo es capaz de abandonar a su suerte a su amo ---que acaba en un sanatorio mental---, sin mucho miramiento; y termina por ser un bufón de «la corte».

Las dos historias intercaladas que aparecen se pueden resumir en una máxima: quien se aleja de la Iglesia, acaba mal. Es normal en un autor (Jerónimo de Pasamonte) totalmente fanatizado con la religión.

En fin, ha estado bien; y según cuentan, sin esta obra, Cervantes no hubiese escrito la segunda parte del Quijote, por lo que bienvenida sea. Tengo ganas de empezar con la verdadera segunda parte, y una vez concluida, leerme «Hacen falta cuatro siglos para entender a Cervantes».

[Iñaki Tofiño · Rating 2 out of 5]

Cuesta, hay que echarle ganas y al final uno se siente un poco mal por las mil perrerías que le hacen pasar al pobre Don Quijote.
Ahora a por la segunda parte de Cervantes, a ver qué tal resulta.

[Cadilos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cinco estrellas por el éxito en plagiar lo excelso.

[Choco Con Churros · Rating 2 out of 5]

No sé si es que lo leí con prejuicios (que reconozco que así es) o qué, pero me resultó insoportable.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

#RetoLector2022 #Febrero
🔱
#DonQuijote 👴🐴🆚🔪👤🏰
#AlonsoFernándezDeAvellaneda ✒
🔱
Comûnmente conocido como "El falso Quijote" o "El Quijote Apôcrifo", esta secuela ( no reconocida por Cervantes) nos narra la tercera salida que tuvo don Quijote, acompañado de Sancho Panza, salida que tiene como objetivo el participar en las justas de Zaragoza.
🔱
Conocido en nuestros dîas como un "fanfic", la historia da inicio en la casa de don Quijote, en el que êste, ya curado de sus insanidades mentales, se dedica de lleno a su hacienda y obligaciones. Pero, al llegar un grupo de viajeros y toparse con el exandante caballero y contarle que se dirijen a las justas de Zaragoza, las locuras vuelven a la cabeza del ingenioso manchego, y no puede pasar por alto la cobardîa a la que todo mundo le referirîa si êl, el Caballero de la Triste Figura, desfacedor de agravios, enderezador de entuertos y auxiliador de doncellas, no se presentase a dichas justas.
🔱
Y con sus ganas de cambiar al mundo y hacerlo mâs igualitario y habitable, don Quijote parte, junto con Sancho, convencido de seguirle y hacer el bien, por el camino a Zaragoza. En el trayecto, no le faltarân las, mâs que aventuras, las desventuras a su fiel escudero y al honorable caballero, el cual, por el rechazo de su dama, la sin par y hermosa Dulcinea, ahora se hace llamar "El Caballero Desenamorado". Nuevos problemas, nuevos reveses, nuevos sufrimientos y golpes sufrirâ don Quijote al querer impartir justicia, de acuerdo a su misiôn caballeresca.
🔱
Asî, no sôlo se enfrentarâ a caballeros peligrosos, magos y encantamientos, todos productos de su imaginaciôn, sino que se batirâ en duelo con el mismîsimo rey de Chipre, el descumunal gigante, Bramidân de Tajayunque...el cual es resultado de una broma y de la demencia de nuestro hidalgo manchego. De igual forma, tendrâ como misiôn sagrada, restaurar en su reino a la bella doncella, la virginal Cenobia...prostituta, llamada Bârbara, rescatada en el camino, y aceptada para acompañarles en el viaje.
🔱
El prôlogo es una genialidad: verdadero trabajo "detectivesco".
🔱
#libros #leer #literatura #bookckub #clubdelectura #sepancuantos @libreria_porrua @editorial_porrua

[Shannon Cooke · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read Cervantes’ Don Quixote several times, and I was always struck with the feeling of missing out on something. About midway through the second part, there are suddenly references to another book, one which was written and published after Cervantes released his first part.

It was, in essence, the very first fan fiction, and Cervantes did not like it. In fact, he spent quite some time in branding it as completely false and in no way related to his own work.

When approaching this reread of Don Quixote, therefore, I set out to experience the story as readers of the time would have done — with the apocryphal story set in the middle.

Avellaneda’s Don Quixote is a very different creature than that of Cervantes. For one thing, we are meant to identify far more with the noblemen whom Quixote meets, and to laugh with them at the crazy man. Sancho too is changed from one who is uneducated but still wise, to a glutton who blathers on without making sense.

Their adventures are quite repetitive, and typically involve Quixote being moved to violence as his insanity prevents him from interacting normally with the world, which Sancho tries to find something to eat, and onlookers play along in order to ridicule the pair. At one point an old, scarred woman named Barbara is introduced, who becomes in a sense the new Dulcinea figure. She spends her time trying unsuccessfully to seduce Sancho.

I’m glad to have read Avallaneda’s version of the story. It is not as good in my opinion, but it illustrates how the same character in the hands of a different author brings to light a completely different take. And make no mistake, this fan fiction is just a much a work of literature as the better known version.

[La Pasión Inútil · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un intertexto espléndido: Avellaneda recupera elementos importantes del estilo cervantino y cosecha una obra que es más que una prosecución. En “El Quijote Apócrifo” hay aventura caballeresca, humor, metaliteratura, simbolismo y un interesante asociación de la figura manchega con el servicio a Dios. Aparece aquí también una férrea exaltación de las mitologías individuales y una defensa del minimalismo. Lectura imprescindible.

[Jaume · Rating 3 out of 5]

Segunda parte de el Quijote, a la que le falta la ironía y la narración inteligente de la primera parte. La figura de el Quijote, más seria y cerebral; la de Sancho Panza, más escatológica. En conjunto, aventuras carentes de la brillantez de Cervantes.

[Ezequiel · Rating 4 out of 5]

No entendí):
Pero el final, al menos el de don quijote, es glorioso uwu.
Las novelas ejemplares, valen muchísimo la pena, no tanto por si mismas, sino por el conjunto que forman; generan una visión distorsionada de dos dioses, el ultraviolento, del antiguo testamento y el piadoso, del nuevo.

[Hugo Arbieto · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un Quijote sin el brillo de la obra clásica.

[Stinne Larsen · Rating 5 out of 5]

vanvittigt, fabulerende og fjollet- en stor oplevelse og virkelig godt oplæst!

[Prasiddha Thapa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good but not as good as Cervantes Don Quixote with not much character development as in the original one. Still a good read.

[Chris 34 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Si bien es cierto que el Quijote es ampliamente conocido y reconocido, parodiado, exaltado y citado; no es menos verdadero que Cervantes es cada vez menos leído. Esto último puede decirse, aunque con mayor veracidad, del Quijote de Avellaneda, obra tan ignorada, que resulta una curiosidad encontrar a alguien que la haya ojeado, más aún, que sepa su existencia.

El argumento del "Quijote falso" no podría ser más sencillo: nuestro héroe viaja a Zaragoza con motivo de unas justas, luego de las cuales traba enemistad con el gigante Rey de Chipre, Bramidán de Tajayunque, lo que termina por conducirlo a Alcalá y posteriormente a Madrid. En el camino lo acompañan el ya conocido escudero, Sancho Panza, y una mujer pobre a quien ha tomado por Cenobia, reina de las Amazonas.
Pero, respecto a la narrativa misma, cabe decir que es evidente la superioridad de su homólogo cervantino. ¿A qué se deberá esta diferencia?

Alfonso Martín Jiménez argumenta -y en ello estoy de acuerdo-, que el uso de los elementos tradicionales de la retórica, así como algunas de las teorías médicas más en boga (la de los ingenios, por ejemplo), eran conocidas y bien asimiladas por Cervantes, y no por el tal Avellaneda; de lo que se desprende una colección de personajes cuya construcción es mucho más rica y, por ende, humana.

Lo cierto es que el Quijote apócrifo es un personaje muy poco interesante, con recursos estilísticos menores y que, francamente, llega a causar preocupación al lector por el nivel de locura del que es víctima. El Quijote de Cervantes, por otro lado, si bien es imposible negar su enajenación, posee una gama impresionante de recursos discursivos y filosóficos, que lo hacen ser delicioso y encantador. Un oxímoron andante (loco cuerdo), cuya dialéctica refleja y manifiesta muchas de las tensiones sociales de la época, y literarias de la novela tal y como la conocemos en la actualidad.

Finalmente, ambos Quijotes intercalan en el relato otras historias menores. Curiosamente, en mi opinión, estas otras narraciones son de lo más recuperable del libro de Avellaneda. Historias concisas, a menudo moralizantes, pero que atinan a ser suficientemente emotivas para tener un valor literario más o menos superior a la trama principal, muy a pesar del anquilosamiento de sus personajes, comparados de nuevo con Cervantes.

Curiosidad literaria, plagio, parodia, una de las primeras fan-fic; el Quijote de Avellaneda ocupa un lugar que es difícil asignarle a cualquier otra obra literaria: importa, más que por su calidad estética, por su relación con una de las obras pilares de la literatura moderna.

[Eulate · Rating 2 out of 5]

En esta ocasión, en mi relectura integral de El Quijote, he querido introducir tras la primera parte este apócrifo de Avellaneda, tan nombrado como causante de una continuación que, según parece, Cervantes no tenía pensada, y que es realmente la "gran obra".

· El de Avellaneda, hay que decirlo pronto, es una obra muy mediocre; es una mala caricatura de una caricatura; incide en los defectos de los que adolece la primera entrega del alcalaíno, especialmente en el entremetimiento de novelitas insulsas dentro de la novela. Las acciones aquí son pobres en dinamismo e ingenio; las aventuras reiterativas y sin gancho; las conversaciones, los diálogos entre caballero y escudero, sin enjundia alguna. En cuanto al desarrollo de los grandes personajes cervantinos, Avellaneda los modifica de tal modo que don Quijote queda en una capa inferior a Sancho, quien queda continuamente ridiculizado hasta extremos en los que, más que gracia, causa pena de tan forzados disparates y bobadas que le hace decir el autor. Por su parte el Caballero Desamorado (porque Dulcinea es aquí repudiada por ingrata) es presentado en una enajenación constante, sin visos de oportunidad ni inteligencia y de continuo maltratado como un monigote. La inhumanidad con la que el autor, sea quien fuere, trata a los estereotipos que dibujara Cervantes llega a causar indignación.

· No me ha merecido la pena esta lectura y no la recomiendo: resulta innecesaria para acometer la segunda parte de El Quijote auténtico, el de Miguel de Cervantes.

[Agustín G. Campos Priego · Rating 3 out of 5]

Definitivamente leer el llamado Quijote apócrifo fue una experiencia interesante, sobre todo para disfrutar en toda su dimensión la segunda parte del Quijote real de Cervantes. No obstante queda clarísimo que Avellaneda—si es que así se llamaba el autor de esta obra no autorizada— no es Miguel de Cervantes y, sin negar que tiene pasajes agradables, su pluma no está a la altura. Además, el autor toma decisiones sobre los personajes que serían impensables en el Quijote original.

Para los que amamos el mundo de Don Quijote, recomiendo que, aunque sea una sola ocasión, se sumerjan en esta lectura una vez terminada la primera parte y antes de empezar la segunda, para reír aún más cuando Don Quijote y Sancho se enteren que por ahí hay una copia de ellos mismos haciendo cosas “en su nombre y representación”.

[Wendell · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is THE BOOK. All other book derive from this book. I read this book twice. Read it with a purpose and discuss it with someone. Rich.