I’ve long been ruminating on the theme of the novel and Quixote’s role in the fictional world in which the novel is set, so please forgive the verbosity of this posting. Berry mentioned that Quixote is on a quest for honor and glory, and though I partially agree, I think that this desire is more of a means to an end. Part 2 begins with a brief (for this novel, Quixote’s two-page paragraph is brief) discussion by Quixote in which he addresses the reasons for his adventuring interests. He says, “My only endeavor is to convince the world of the mistake it makes in not reviving in itself the happy time when the order of knight-errantry was in the field.” However, he continues by saying, “But our depraved age does not deserve to enjoy such a blessing as those ages enjoyed when knights-errant [performed their role].” Yet he still goes out on his often-dangerous adventures, bravely facing whatever threats he encounters, imagines, or creates. He has given up a life of relative luxury – he is a “don” after all – and undertaken a dangerous role for noble reasons. He can’t live in a world of “depravity,” so he’d rather invent a much more romantic and noble reality, even if it means suffering bodily for it. Dostoevsky talks about a similar concept in The Brothers Karamazov (I think Father Zosima gives the speech) when he discusses the benefits a life of asceticism has on the soul. Self-denial is, in some people’s opinion, the height of religious expression and fervor – and one cannot ignore or mitigate the impact of Christianity on the novel as a whole and all the characters therein. Therefore, Don Quixote’s delusions of his own knighthood – amusing as they are – are at the core born of his deep-seated religiosity, his selflessness, and his nobility. Since his perceptions of himself and, in some cases, of the world are flawed (self-delusional or not) and he is not often successful in improving the world around him (here, I am disagreeing with Berry who notes that other people become better in his presence – see below), he becomes a tragic hero.
One of the things I find myself disliking most about the story are the occasions when the people Quixote encounters take advantage of him or play jokes on him. Examples abound: The slew of people Quixote meets and travels with toward the end of Part 1, Samson Carrasco (though he got what he deserved), Sancho Panza (esp. the incident with the peasant “Dulcinea”), and the duke and duchess (who really ought to know better) and their servants. Such people, in the presence of Don Quixote (who is really adventuring on their behalf) become worse for their encounter with him. Another example of a person who does not improve as a result of an encounter with Don Quixote (at least, he has not yet shown improvement) was Gines de Pasamonte who, as a criminal, was freed from bondage by Don Quixote early in Part 1, then immediately lead the prisoners’ attack on Quixote and Panza. A couple days later, he stole Panza’s ass in the mountains. In Part 2, he shows up as a con man, trying to take advantage of Quixote’s pride (though, to his credit, Quixote resists this ploy) and bilking people out of their money. He doesn’t even get his just desserts, as Quixote pays him for inadvertently destroying his puppet show (hysterical scene, by the way). I hope we see more of the “Carrasco”-type scenes, where those who try to play on Quixote’s delusions are, at the very least, thwarted, if not punished for their actions.
I agree whole-heartedly with Berry, though, when he points out that at his core Quixote is really a good man doing good things to help others and that the world needs more of this. Again, in his speech in Part 2, Chapter 1 (this is really an awesome speech and illustrates the heart of the novel, if not the theme), Don Quixote decries the sloth, indolence, vice, arrogance, and materialism that exist in his world. We could issue that same indictment of our society today. Thus, the book instantly becomes timeless in this sense, for would our world not benefit from a revival of knight-errantry?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting thoughts. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that an underlying purpose of Don Quixote’s journey is spiritual in nature. It could be about individual honor and glory, it could be about “convincing the world of its errors,” but it’s also somehow spiritual. Here are some other things to consider, if we accept this as true.
1. If Quixote’s journey is spiritual, what do Dulcinea and Sancho become symbolic of, if anything? I’m not implying that the novel is allegorical in the strictest sense of the word, but associations are inevitable when spirituality or religion are concerned.
2. Can we categorize this journey? I can think of four different types of spiritual journeys (though there are probably many more): (i) crusade, (ii) self-discovery, (iii) redemption or salvation, and (iv) temptation. By temptation, I mean a journey in which the faith of the hero is tested, and he must show his resolve.
3. You mention the influence of Christianity on the characters in the novel. Are you implying that the journey is a Christian one or that the novel has a Christian message?
Here are just a few thoughts on the second question. I find the first and third difficult and will have to think about them some more.
As far as the journey goes, the crusade applies when we consider the passage that you mention. He wants to “convince the world of its errors” and spread the word of knight-errantry, which is similar to Crusaders spreading the word of Christianity. It also applies on a thematic level with the genre of knight-errantry. However, I think self-discovery is out (though this is debatable). I think Don Quixote declares himself a knight at the outset and never wavers; he has a clear sense of identity. Redemption also does not apply to Don Quixote, though it could apply to the novel in that Don Quixote could be seen as a figure who redeems others and the world, though as you say, this does not happen. If anything, he brings out some of the worst in people. Temptation could apply, because Don Quixote is frequently challenged about his faith in knight-errantry. Still, he never truly doubts himself.
A spiritual reading still brings us back to purpose. Is the journey Don Quixote’s road to Heaven or some form of redemption or salvation? It seems to me that this discussion inevitably leads to this question, otherwise the journey is more of a crusade for chivalry, and I think we all want the novel to be more than that.
Nicely done gentlemen. A few of my own thoughts: One of the most easily observed characteristics both the Don and Sancho possess is their convenient dichotomous nature. Sancho is both loyal and a liar, idiotic and wise (a true Shakespearean fool). The Don is both brave and cowardly, crazy and brilliant. They are very much aware of their consciously created fabrications, yet they accept these stories (Duclinea as the most prominent example) so that they may continue to fully exploit their much-needed romantic adventure. There are many examples like the quote that Fab provided to support this claim. On one end, the Don wants to give the world the much needed – in his opinion – gift of knight errantry, and on the other had he feels they don't deserve it (Boy, we could easily come up with a list of both historical and fictitious characters who've had this same issue, I'm sure). I find this ability to excuse, backtrack, flip-flop and rationalize to be crucial to the plot, themes, characters, etc. of the novel. Truly, the story is about an old, tired, unimpressive man (only because he does nothing, not because he doesn't possess the intelligence to be more) caught between the reality of his life in the world, and his desires to do something amazing before he leaves the world unremembered. He needs a purpose. Many a night he finds himself caught up in a wondrous world of knights and quests and valor and what have you, only to wake the next day to his real world of less than satisfactory – in his romantic mind – human relationships and societal values. He is the ultimate observer who finally gets off his ass and decides to participate before it's too late. One the one hand, he is selfless and noble in his desire to "help" the world get back to a better place, and on the other hand he is assuming that the world needs to fit into his romantic view of right/wrong, happiness, etc. (his "gift" of knight-errantry is an arrogant offering if you feel that the world has "outgrown" such foolishness). He also puts his own needs for self-fulfillment before the world he claims to assist on several occasions, most notably when he frees the prisoners because they somehow fit into his view of helping the helpless (HAH!). Of course, there are going to be many instances where he gets mixed up, afraid, or takes the easy way out, because this is a new thing for him, and he draws from a fictitious source as his "gospel". Because the literature is flawed, it's imperative that Quixote is, at the very least, unstable.
Still, even if his "gift" to his fictitious world, inspired by a fictitious source, is suspect, in both the fictitious world of the novel, and Cervantes' real world, there is much evidence to support the claim that Don Quixote, the man and the novel, are making both worlds a better place. So good for him, the crazy bastard!
I'm wondering if less people in the 2nd Part are bettered by the Don because the story of his 1st journey has been made known, and he is no longer faceless but quite famous? Is his celebrity somehow tainting himself, and the world? OR, does his celebrity allow his access to the very people he speaks about when he suggests the world does not deserve his gift?
I do think our boy is on a personal Crusade, assisted by his views and comforts of Christianity. But I don't feel he's on any specific quest for religion, or drawn by religious forces (if they story was allegorical, of course Sancho should represent loyalty, which is funny because he lies to his boss from time to time). I think he's out for Salvation from his faceless, dull-ass life, and Redemption for his guilty comforts and security. Is that too simple?
One question that you both sparked in my mind, when reading your thoughts, is in what shapes/persons do we see 21st century versions of knight-errantry? Because, I doubt the concepts have died out; they've only changed their shapes.
Post a Comment