Don Quixote
4/10
“’For all of that’, said Don Juan, ‘it would be well to read it, since no book is so bad that there is not some good to be found in it’”.
High on innovation, low on entertainment.
I respected and appreciated this novel for what it was and its huge and long-lasting impact on literature. Nevertheless, at times it was dull, repetitive, and aimless. It is regarded by some as the first modern novel and, according to select historians of literature, is the first where characters change and develop over time. The novel is really two books, published in 1605 and 1615, where, particularly in the first, it is clear to readers that Cervantes is a careless author. There are major inconsistencies in characters and plot points that are forgotten completely. In the second, he tries to resolve these dangling threads; justify inconsistencies; and successfully conclude the story of Don Quixote, while competing with an unauthorised sequel to his novel. I would argue that these goals are somewhat achieved in an emotionally powerful and thought-provoking ending.
One of the first things I noticed when reading this novel, was that all the parts with which I was familiar through pop culture, specifically, using a basin as a helmet and tilting at the windmills, happened very early on in the book. Perhaps that is as far as many readers get?
With regard to the notion that it is the greatest novel ever written, I didn’t get anything like that from Don Quixote. This view was mirrored by Nabokov, who dismisses this idea as ‘nonsense’ and says that it is not “one of the greatest novels of the world, but its hero, whose personality is a stroke of genius on the part of Cervantes, looms so wonderfully above the skyline of literature, a gaunt giant on a lean nag, that the book lives and will live through the sheer vitality that Cervantes has injected into the main character of a very patchy haphazard tale, which is saved from falling apart only by its creator’s wonderful artistic intuition that has his Don Quixote go into action at the right moments of the story”.
I have mixed feelings about the character Don Quixote. In some respects, I like the character and his good heart. On his worldview, he says “thank heaven that it has endowed me with a tender and compassionate heart, always disposed to do good to all and harm to none”. The character of Don Quixote is truly an enduring one, too. Nabokov says, “He has ridden for three hundred and fifty years through the jungles and tundras of human thought—and he has gained in vitality and stature. We do not laugh at him any longer. His blazon is pity, his banner is beauty. He stands for everything that is gentle, forlorn, pure, unselfish, and gallant. The parody has become a paragon”.
Sancho, while being the principal source of comedy in the story, is also an admirable character in many respects. He cares deeply for Dapple and is generally loyal to Don Quixote, even though it may not always be to his advantage. “’By God, senora’, said Sancho, ‘but that doubt comes timely; but your grace may say it out, and speak plainly, or as you like; for I know what you say is true, and if I were wise I should have left my master long ago; but this was my fate, this was my bad luck; I can’t help it, I must follow him; we’re from the same village, I’ve eaten his bread, I’m fond of him, I’m grateful, he gave me his ass-colts, and above all I’m faithful; so it’s quite impossible for anything to separate us, except the pickaxe and shovel’”.
With regard to comedy in the story, according to the introduction to the free Kindle version, “the sententious terseness to which the humour of the book owes its flavour is peculiar to Spanish, and can at best be only distantly imitated in any other tongue”. Nabokov agrees, “Wordplay: alliterations, puns, mispronounced words. All this is lost in translation”. While so much of this text must be lost to English readers, “Sancho hastened to his assistance as fast as his ass could go”, is probably only funny to them.
Rather than being laugh out loud funny, the book is described by critics as being moderately amusing, at times. Don Quixote directing every conversation to the same things, Knights Errant and Dulcinea, can be entertaining, but can be grating also. I enjoyed instances where Don Quixote couldn’t resist correcting Sancho’s grammar: “’Induced, you should say, Sancho’, said Don Quixote; ‘not educed’. ‘Once or twice, as well as I remember’, replied Sancho, ‘I have begged of your worship not to mend my words, if so be as you understand what I mean by them; and if you don’t understand them to say ‘Sancho,’ or ‘devil’, ‘I don’t understand thee; and if I don’t make my meaning plain, then you may correct me, for I am so focile-‘ ‘I don’t understand thee, Sancho’, said Don Quixote at once; ‘for I know not what ‘I am so focile’ means’”.
Another funny passage was when a landlord offers Sancho anything he likes for dinner. He says “his mouth should be the measure; he had only to ask what he would; for that inn was provided with the birds of the air and the fowls of the earth and the fish of the sea. ‘There’s no need of all that’, said Sancho; ‘if they’ll roast us a couple of chickens we’ll be satisfied, for my master is delicate and eats little, and I’m not over and above gluttonous’. The landlord replied he had no chickens, for the kites had stolen them. ‘Well then’, said Sancho, ‘let senor landlord tell them to roast a pullet, so that it is a tender one’. ‘Pullet! My father!’ said the landlord; ‘indeed and in truth it’s only yesterday I sent over fifty to the city to sell; but saving pullets ask what you will’. ‘In that case’, said Sancho, ‘you will not be without veal or kid’. ‘Just now’, said the landlord, ‘there’s none in the house, for it’s all finished; but next week there will be enough and to spare’.”
Nevertheless, I’m with Nabokov when he says, “The Don is certainly not funny. His squire, with all his prodigious memory for old saws, is even less funny than his master… The corniest modern gag is funnier. Nor do the horseplay scenes in our book really convulse modern diaphragms”.
One of the reasons that the book is so unfunny in politically correct 2019 is that different things are funny now. For instance, Nabokov says that during the time that Don Quixote was set, insanity was considered to be comical as was violence and cruelty. He adds, that the novel is “one of the most bitter and barbarous books ever penned. And its cruelty is artistic”. Later, he summarises some of these cruel, violent, and unfunny incidents. “So we start in chapter 3 with the innkeeper who allows a haggard madman to stay at his inn just in order to laugh at him and have his guests laugh at him. We go on with a shriek of hilarity to the half-naked lad flogged with a belt by a hefty farmer (chapter 4). We are convulsed with laughter again in chapter 4 when a mule driver pounds the helpless Don Quixote like wheat in a mill. In chapter 8 another belly laugh is given unto us by the servants of some traveling monks, who pull every hair from Sancho’s beard and kick him mercilessly. What a riot, what a panic! Some carriers in chapter 15 beat Rocinante so hard that he drops to the ground half-dead—but never mind, in a minute the puppet master will revive his squeaking dolls… Dulcinea shall be restored to Don Quixote if—now comes the rib-splitting joke—if Sancho consents to take 3,000 lashes on his bare behind”.
Favourably, some ideas and sentences survive the translation rather well and elevate the novel. An example is when Don Quixote is giving Sancho instructions for his visit to Dulcinea. Regarding a report of this, he skilfully requests of Sancho, “neither adding nor falsifying to give me pleasure, nor yet curtailing lest you should deprive me of it”. The passage saying, “that the wheel of fortune turns faster than a mill-wheel, and that those who were up yesterday are down to-day”, reminded me of Boethius. He was a philosopher (477-524 C.E.) who wrote that fortune was a goddess and that people could never be sure in what condition her ‘wheel’, the wheel of fortune would leave them.
At times, the novel was even capable of being profound. For example, in a long monologue where Don Quixote says: “’Come, tell me, hast thou not seen a play acted in which kings, emperors, pontiffs, knights, ladies, and divers other personages were introduced? One plays the villain, another the knave, this one the merchant, that the soldier, one the sharp-witted fool, another the foolish lover; and when the play is over, and they have put off the dresses they wore in it, all the actors become equal’. ‘Yes, I have seen that’, said Sancho. ‘Well then’, said Don Quixote, ‘the same thing happens in the comedy and life of this world, where some play emperors, others popes, and, in short, all the characters that can be brought into a play; but when it is over, that is to say when life ends, death strips them all of the garments that distinguish one from the other, and all are equal in the grave’”.
Some interesting ideas are just throwaways, “the hypocrite who pretends to be good does less harm than the open sinner”.
Another idea that I thought was interesting and ahead of its time, related to the stupidity of crowds: “though it is better to be praised by the wise few than applauded by the foolish many, I have no mind to submit myself to the stupid judgment of the silly public, to whom the reading of such books [Chivalric] falls for the most part”. In my view, the major book for idiots at this present time is the Facebook.
There are some advanced and meta parts to the story where it seems to critique itself. “’For all that’, replied the bachelor, ‘there are those who have read the history who say they would have been glad if the author had left out some of the countless cudgellings that were inflicted on Senor Don Quixote in various encounters’”. Yes, please. The violence was excessive in this book and not at all funny. A lot of good ‘grinders’ were lost by our ‘heroes’.
For all its interesting and innovative ideas and writing, there are seriously weak parts to the novel also. Imagine including this in a novel: “The words the brothers exchanged, the emotion they showed can scarcely be imagined, I fancy, much less put down in writing”. Thanks for that wonderful descriptive language, Cervantes. It’s the equivalent of saying on a radio programme, ‘Folks, the only way to properly experience this is to see it in the flesh’. Also, “With these, and other discussions of the same sort, they passed that night and the following day, without anything worth mention happening to them”. Why even include this? It might be argued that nothing worth mentioning happened to them in the course of the novel.
With regard to its composition generally, Nabokov recounts common criticisms that it is “a farrago of prefabricated events, secondhand intrigues, mediocre pieces of verse, trite interpolations, impossible disguises, and incredible coincidences”.
These ‘incredible coincidences’ especially grated on me. Specifically, the soldier Don Quixote and Sancho meet in the inn at the end of part one is telling them about his brother for basically no reason. The brother shows up out of nowhere! Similarly, Dorotea, Ferdinand, Cardenio, and Lucinda, are all in the same place at the same time in a contrivance that can’t be ignored. Spain is about 7 times the size of Ireland, but feels like a tiny village with all these chance meetings. Further, the repeated story line of some man that promised to marry some woman and now is about to marry another person was done to death in the book. I groaned each time.
There are many evident instances of sloppiness and carelessness in the composition of the novel. Indeed, Nabokov says that readers may have the impression that when Cervantes “was in the act of writing the second part, he did not have a copy of the first part on his writing desk; never thumbed through it: he seems to remember that first part as an average reader would, not as a writer, not as a student. Otherwise it is impossible to explain how he managed, for instance, while in the very act of criticising the errors committed by the author of the spurious continuation of Don Quixote to make even worse blunders in the same connection, in regard to the same characters”. Similarly, according to Diego Clemencin cited in Nabokov, Cervantes “wrote his fable with a carelessness that seems impossible to explain: without any planning, whatever his fancy, his abundant and robust fancy, dictated. He had moreover an unconquerable distaste for revising what he had written—hence the formidable crop of blunders, forgotten or misplaced incidents, incongruous details, names and events, undergoing all kinds of irritating transformations in retrospect or in repetition, and various other flaws pock-marking the book”.
Some notable examples of nonsensical story issues are: The theft of Sancho’s ass that is simply forgotten about and when Don Quixote returns at the end of the first book and before he departs again in the second book, about one month has passed. According to the novel, the tales of his wanderings have been written, published (12,000 copies), and widely read by the time he leaves in the second book. This is completely impossible. Publishing a book in the 16th century must have been a lengthy, difficult, and complex process. For instance, in ‘The Novel of the Century: The Extraordinary Adventure of Les Misérables’ by David Bellos, details are provided of the difficulties of publishing a book hundreds of years later, in the 1860s, and it is very slow and unwieldy.
Cervantes tries to backpedal on his errors at times. He tries to point the finger of blame at a straw man historian, Cide Hamete Benengeli. Specifically, “but some have brought a charge against the author’s memory, inasmuch as he forgot to say who the thief was who stole Sancho’s Dapple; for it is not stated there, but only to be inferred from what is set down, that he was stolen, and a little farther on we see Sancho mounted on the same ass, without any reappearance of it. They say, too, that he forgot to state what Sancho did with those hundred crowns that he found in the valise in the Sierra Morena, as he never alludes to them again, and there are many who would be glad to know what he did with them, or what he spent them on, for it is one of the serious omissions of the work”.
The book tries to imply that Sancho persistently and consistently speaks in proverbs. However, this only happens in Book 2. Don Quixote says, “For God’s sake, Sancho, no more proverbs!”. He had no such complaint in Book 1 because Sancho just didn’t do this. “Sancho’s cracks and proverbs are not very mirth provoking either in themselves or in their repetitious accumulation” (Nabokov).
Despite these instances of sloppy and careless story construction, the book still managed to touch me emotionally, Indeed, I had a ‘tearful moment’ during Don Quixote and Sancho’s big argument. After Sancho says that he would be better off at home than “following your worship along roads that lead nowhere and paths that are none at all, with little to drink and less to eat”, he realises that he cares for the Don and apologies and retracts. “Sancho regarded Don Quixote earnestly while he was giving him this rating, and was so touched by remorse that the tears came to his eyes, and in a piteous and broken voice he said to him, ‘Master mine, I confess that, to be a complete ass, all I want is a tail; if your worship will only fix one on to me, I’ll look on it as rightly placed, and I’ll serve you as an ass all the remaining days of my life. Forgive me and have pity on my folly, and remember I know but little, and, if I talk much, it’s more from infirmity than malice; but he who sins and mends commends himself to God’”. I must confess, I felt so bad for poor Sancho at this point. Though being principally written for comedic relief, he is so desperate and pathetic here with his real and true friendship with the Don fully on display.
I also really appreciated the genuine care and concern that Sancho has for Dapple. At one point, he says “the poor little beast is rather easily frightened, and cannot bear being alone at all”. It takes a big heart to consider that an animal might be lonely or scared. Later, the text reads, “and going up to Dapple embraced him and gave him a loving kiss on the forehead, and said to him, not without tears in his eyes, ‘Come along, comrade and friend and partner of my toils and sorrows; when I was with you and had no cares to trouble me except mending your harness and feeding your little carcass, happy were my hours, my days, and my years; but since I left you, and mounted the towers of ambition and pride, a thousand miseries, a thousand troubles, and four thousand anxieties have entered into my soul’”.
When Sancho is leaving his governor job, Nabokov says that he reveals “a dignity and a slow sadness comparable to the melancholy emotions of his master”. I felt this too and thought it unfair for a character who had grown so far in nobility throughout the story to be tricked and treated in a manner that forced him to leave.
The central moral of the story, too, was not lost on me. It was fascinating and thought-provoking to examine how a kind, humane soul can appear insane to an insensitive and unromantic world.
However, the story’s representation of women sickened me. This is probably to be expected of 1605 onwards, where women were viewed as possessions and the property of men, and it is inferred that they owe interested male parties for their attentions. Further, women are characterised as shallow, vacillating, and disloyal.
“’Torralva, when she found herself spurned by Lope, was immediately smitten with love for him, though she had never loved him before’. ‘That is the natural way of women’, said Don Quixote, ‘to scorn the one that loves them, and love the one that hates them: go on, Sancho’.” Hang on. Maybe there is something to this. It is reminiscent of treat ‘em mean, keep ‘em keen.
Later, “I follow another, easier, and to my mind wiser course, and that is to rail at the frivolity of women, at their inconstancy, their double dealing, their broken promises, their unkept pledges, and in short the want of reflection they show in fixing their affections and inclinations. This, sirs, was the reason of words and expressions I made use of to this goat when I came up just now; for as she is a female I have a contempt for her, though she is the best in all my fold”.
The representation of people with darker skin also leaves much to be desired. An example being of Sancho’s below thought process: “The only thing that troubled him was the reflection that this kingdom was in the land of the blacks, and that the people they would give him for vassals would be all black; but for this he soon found a remedy in his fancy, and said he to himself, ‘What is it to me if my vassals are blacks? What more have I to do than make a cargo of them and carry them to Spain, where I can sell them and get ready money for them, and with it buy some title or some office in which to live at ease all the days of my life? Not unless you go to sleep and haven’t the wit or skill to turn things to account and sell three, six, or ten thousand vassals while you would be talking about it! By God I will stir them up, big and little, or as best I can, and let them be ever so black I’ll turn them into white or yellow. Come, come, what a fool I am!’ And so he jogged on, so occupied with his thoughts and easy in his mind that he forgot all about the hardship of travelling on foot”.
Through my reading of the book, I learned some great new words e.g. niggardliness (no it’s fine to say!) and what a fulling mill was.
If you recall, I spoke with you in July, 2018 about bi-modal sleep. According to proponents of this theory, records from the 15th and 16th centuries support this notion. Yes, this novel is included. “Don Quixote obeyed nature so far as to sleep his first sleep, but did not give way to the second, very different from Sancho, who never had any second, because with him sleep lasted from night till morning, wherein he showed what a sound constitution and few cares he had”. Don Quixote only had half a night’s sleep here, but fat, ignorant Sancho, unusually, slept right through.
I don’t really have too much else to say about this book, except, did you catch the excellent dog name? ‘Barcino’. It’s great.
“I have no more of my story to tell you, gentlemen; whether it be an interesting or a curious one let your better judgments decide; all I can say is I would gladly have told it to you more briefly; although my fear of wearying you has made me leave out more than one circumstance”.
[Please note: At this point, I cheat on the list by reading ‘How to Get a PhD: A Handbook for Students and Their Supervisors’ and ‘How to Survive Your Viva: Defending a Thesis In An Oral Examination’]
