Classics and the Western Canon discussion

The Duke and Duchess continue their elaborate manipulation of Don Quixote and Sancho with the invention of the Dolorous Duenna/Countess Trifaldi. What does this story add to the novel?

I'm not sure myself that it adds anything, but the character of Sancho seems to be developing more than that of DQ. Did Sancho really lift his blindfold enough to see what was going on during the flight of Clavileño? The Duke makes a profane joke when he asks Sancho about the "seven nanny goats" (the Pleiades) he saw in his journey through space -- he asks if he saw any males (cabrones), and Sancho responds as if he is in on the joke: "No... but I heard that not one of them has passed beyond the horns of the moon." He also says that the earth appeared to be size of a mustard seed, while men appeared the size of hazel nuts. Is this just Sancho being Sancho, or are these signals that he does in fact understand that this is all just an inventive joke played on DQ?

What else do we learn about DQ and Sancho in this episode that we didn't already know? (If anything, that is...)

Susanna wrote: "In Chapter XLII, Don Quixote gives very serious advice to Sancho about governing an insula. DQ expounds on compassion, fairness, and virtuousness. What are we to make of this being dropped into suc..."

We've seen previously where DQ has given prudent and wise advice, at least in non-chivalric matters. He is good at telling others how to act, but he doesn't follow his own advice.

But, as has been said so often in the course of this great history, he spoke nonsense only with regard to chivalry, and in other conversations he demonstrated a clear and confident understanding, so that his actions constantly belied his judgment, and his judgment belied his actions..." Ch. XLIII

The duke brings up the opposition of arms and letters, one of the themes of DQ, when he says that Sancho will be dressed "partly as a lettered man and partly as a captain, because on the insula I'm giving you, arms are as necessary as letters and letters as necessary as arms."

DQ is a cracked personality in a lot of ways, but the division between thought and action is key. "Each man is the child of his action" is repeated in the text a number of times. DQ argues against the value of lineage, as if to say it doesn't matter where you come from, it matters what you do. The narrator at the beginning of the book claims not to be the father, but the stepfather of Don Quixote, as if he found it instead of creating it. And DQ himself has no children.

DQ really is the child of his actions, not his words. He is a man of arms, not letters. On the others hand, the inspiration for his action comes from books, fictions, not actions. Cervantes himself was a man of arms who became a man of letters; and I think it's true that reading is a creative act.

Acting and thinking are two sides of the same coin. What happens when they become separated from each other?

Thomas wrote: "The Duke and Duchess continue their elaborate manipulation of Don Quixote and Sancho with the invention of the Dolorous Duenna/Countess Trifaldi. What does this story add to the novel?

I'm not su..."

I don't know how to understabnd Sancho's remarks about the trip, but I did not finish this section yet. He could indeed be joking himself, as Thomas suggested.

DQ's advice seems like the opposite of Machiavelli's advice in The Prince. Maybe it reflects his excessive idealism that is up to the point of fantasizing. Although The Prince was well received at the time of publication, anti-machiavellian movement began in the mid-16th century and the church banned it in 1559. However it had a comeback when Justus Lipsius defended Machiavelli's political prudence in his work Politica in 1589, and was again popular in the late 17th century. I noticed that DQ was published in the early 17th century and wonder about this timing.

I've had a hectic summer vacation with my kids and then had another hactic week with the going back to school and the Korean Thanksgiving holidays. Had to catch up in a whoosh and will catch up with the preceding comments later on. ;-)

Rafael wrote: "Thomas wrote: "The Duke and Duchess continue their elaborate manipulation of Don Quixote and Sancho with the invention of the Dolorous Duenna/Countess Trifaldi. What does this story add to the nove..."

Maybe what Sancho saw was part of the joke. Put there if any of them looked, what Sancho did.

Susanna wrote: "In Chapter XLII, Don Quixote gives very serious advice to Sancho about governing an insula. DQ expounds on compassion, fairness, and virtuousness. What are we to make of this being dropped into suc..."

The advice DQ gives to Sancho about how to conduct himself reminded me a lot of the advice Polonius gives to Laertes in Hamlet.

Thomas wrote: "DQ really is the child of his actions, not his words...."

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

It seems to me as if there is a direct relationship between DQ's words and his actions. His madness lies in a literal reading of the words and acting accordingly instead of acting upon the principles underlying the words.

I'm struggling to find the right words to express this.

DQ reads about knights in shining armor. He takes the words at their face value, reading them literally. Since he wants to do good in the world, he thinks he literally has to dress up as a knight in shining armor and conduct himself according to the literal code of knight errantry. He confuses the application of the literal word with the principle it represents.

He can apply the noble principles of knight errantry--righting wrongs, helping the defenseless, etc. etc. without dressing up like an actual knight and traipsing around the countryside to become fodder for ridicule. His madness lies in applying the words literally instead of reading them as metaphors.

If DQ didn't go around dressed in armour and a broken down helmet, if he didn't spout the literal nonsensical babble of knights, if he just acted according to the principles of knight errantry, applying them to his everyday life, would we still consider him a madman?

Tamara wrote: "Thomas wrote: "DQ really is the child of his actions, not his words...."

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

It seems to me as if there is a direct relationship between DQ's words and his a..."

It sounds like you agree with DQ when he says of Quiteria and Basilio's trick, "They cannot and should not be called deceptions, since their purpose was virtuous."

But actions are not virtuous solely because they start with good intentions, as we see when DQ's good intentions lead to injuries to himself and others. His actions and his chivalric beliefs are in concert, and his advice to Sancho on prudence is logically sound. But he sees the world in a different context. He's not on the same page as the rest of the world, so he comes into conflict with it. At various times he attacks people who mean him no harm and he thinks kindly of those who ridicule him. So is he better defined by the principles he thinks he lives by, or by the way he actually acts in the world?

If DQ didn't go around dressed in armour and a broken down helmet, if he didn't spout the literal nonsensical babble of knights, if he just acted according to the principles of knight errantry, applying them to his everyday life, would we still consider him a madman?

Great question. I think we would, because his actions show that he views the world in a context that is out of sync with common reality. In that way, he is the child of his actions -- he is what he does, not what he says he is. Even though there is nothing wrong with what he says he is, and his intentions are purely benevolent, his actions become very wrong (and funny) when they are based on his confusion of reality with a fictional world.

If he were able to take the principles of knight errantry and adapt them to a common world, would his actions be different?

Cphe wrote: "Are you saying that the trappings that DQ wears are used as a mask?..."

Cphe, I'm not doing it well, I guess. But what i'm suggesting is that his madness lies in confusing the trappings of knight errantry (the outfit, the verbiage, etc. etc.) with the principles of knight errantry.

He thinks that in order to abide by the positive values that knight errantry represents (doing good, helping the defenseless, etc.), he actually has to dress up as a knight, speak like a knight, and fight giants and dragons like a knight. He is so caught up in the literal aspects of knight errantry that when there are no giants and dragons to fight, he makes them up and gets himself and others in a whole host of trouble.

What he says, does, and thinks he sees is filtered through the distorted lens of a literal reading of knight errantry. If he recognized the literal aspects of knight errantry as merely the trappings, as the vehicle and not the substance, if he just abandoned the vehicle and applied the principles of doing good and helping others (the substance), he might even be considered saintly.

I hope I've explained my thoughts a little more clearly.

Tamara wrote: "What he says, does, and thinks he sees is filtered through the distorted lens of a literal reading of knight errantry. If he recognized the literal aspects of knight errantry as merely the trappings, as the vehicle and not the substance, if he just abandoned the vehicle and applied the principles of doing good and helping others (the substance), he might even be considered saintly...."

I think you’ve offered a real insight here. Don Quixote may in fact be mad when it comes to the forms, trappings, and conventions of knight-errantry. Yet his intentions are noble, he seeks to right wrongs, and to do good. Aren’t these noble and worthy aspirations? Yet as long as he is obsessed with the forms and fictions of literary knight-errantry, his good intentions invariably come to naught and usually make matters worse.

When in character as a knight-errant, isn’t Don Quixote a model of bravery, selflessness, loyalty, dedication, determination, and self-sacrifice? Yet we scoff at these admirable traits because of DQ’s obsession with form, and with his refusal or inability to come to terms with whatever contradicts his obsession.

In contrast, we are reminded from time to time that when DQ is not playing the part of a knight-errant he is educated, shows good judgement and is even wise.

It’s impossible not to notice that Sancho Panza and proverbs are inextricably linked. He expresses himself with proverbs - seemingly endless run-on proverbs. One has to wonder where Cervantes got these proverbs. It's far more likely that Cervantes' source was the massive collection of Spanish proverbs collected by Hernán Núñez published in 1555, that that he invented or collected them himself.

Are Sancho’s homespun proverbs perhaps intended as a foil to Don Quixote’s book-learning, especially about knight-errantry? Is Cervantes asking us to think about common sense folk-wisdom, as exemplified in the extreme by Sancho Panza, and formal education and book-wisdom, as exemplified in the extreme by Don Quixote?

Tamara wrote: "What he says, does, and thinks he sees is filtered through the distorted lens of a literal reading of knight errantry. If he recognized the literal aspects of knight errantry as merely the trappings, as the vehicle and not the substance, if he just abandoned the vehicle and applied the principles of doing good and helping others (the substance), he might even be considered saintly."

I think you’ve offered a real insight here, Tamara. Don Quixote may in fact be mad when it comes to the forms, trappings, and conventions of knight-errantry. Yet his intentions are noble, he seeks to right wrongs, and to do good. Aren’t these, as you say, noble and worthy aspirations? But as long as he is obsessed with the forms and fictions of literary knight-errantry, his good intentions invariably come to naught and usually make matters worse.

When in character as a knight-errant, Don Quixote is a model of bravery, selflessness, loyalty, dedication, determination, and self-sacrifice. Yet we scoff at these admirable traits because of his obsession with form, and with his refusal or inability to come to terms with whatever contradicts that form. As if to prove the point Cervantes reminds us that when Quixote is not playing the part of a knight-errant he is educated, shows good judgement and is even wise.

Gary wrote: "I think you’ve offered a real insight here, Tamara..."

Thank you, Gary.

Gary wrote: "When in character as a knight-errant, Don Quixote is a model of bravery, selflessness, loyalty, dedication, determination, and self-sacrifice. Yet we scoff at these admirable traits because of his obsession with form, and with his refusal or inability to come to terms with whatever contradicts that form.

And thank you for articulating the point I tried to make far more eloquently and cogently than I was able to do.