Don Quixote: “mixing one truth with a thousand lies”

1/ I love Cervantes’s wit.

Quite early on in Part 2, he doesn’t just have Don Quixote and Sancho Panza talk about existence of Part 1, but he also writes a scene where another character, Sansón, discuss its faults, such as the insertion of the Anselmo-Lotario-Camilla story. 

The funniest bit is when Sansón says: “… it seems to me that there will be no nation or language that will not have its own translation.” (P.2, ch.3) 

Not very modest, is Miguel? But Don Quixote has indeed turned out to be one of the most translated books in the world. 

I also like that Cervantes plays around with the form, so his novel feels more modern than many novels that came out in the 19th or 20th century. For example, in Part 1, he creates the conceit that the story of Don Quixote is written by a Moor named Cide Mahamate Benengeli, then the manuscript is found by an unnamed narrator (the joke, of course, is that that’s Cervantes) and then translated; the story moves between Benengeli’s narrative voice and Cervantes’s, but Cervantes the author doesn’t make much use of that conceit. In Part 2, he plays around more with it and has the translator commenting on the writing of Cide Mahamate Benengeli, and the comments are reported, in indirect speech, by Cervantes the narrator. 

Cervantes plays more with the concept of unreliable narrators. For example:

“He also put a cape of good gray material on. First of all, he washed his head and face with five—or maybe six (because there’s a difference of opinion about the number)—buckets of water, and even with that, the water was still the color of whey, thanks to the gluttony of Sancho and the purchase of his black cottage cheese that made his master so white.” (P.2, ch.18) 

(translated by Tom Lathrop) 

And he goes further—Don Quixote says: 

““… I fear that in the history they say is circulating about my deeds, if by chance the author was an enchanter who is my enemy, he may have written one thing for another, mixing one truth with a thousand lies, and amusing himself by telling idle tales that are not related to the truth of the history. Oh, envy, root of infinite wickedness and destroyer of virtue! All vices, Sancho, take along with them a bit of pleasure, but envy brings only disgust, animosity, and rage.”

“That’s what I say, too,” responded Sancho, “and I think that this legend or history that the bachelor Sansón Carrasco has seen must have dragged my honor through the dirt, as they say, from pillar to post, here and there, sweeping the streets with it…”” (P.2, ch.8)

The Don Quixote and Sancho Panza of Part 2 are not the same as the Don Quixote and Sancho Panza of Part 1: they’re now conscious they have been in a book, and will be in another. 

The other characters may also be different in that they may know the two of them from the text of Part 1: there’s an episode, for example, in which Don Quixote meets a reader who mirrors his actions and echoes his language. 

2/ Shakespeare regularly compares life to the stage, Cervantes also makes the same comparison in the novel—I like that conversation between Don Quixote and Sancho Panza: 

“… “Well, the same thing,” said Don Quixote, “that happens in plays happens in life—some are emperors, others popes, and all the characters that there are in a play. But when the end comes, which is when life ends, Death takes away all the clothing that differentiates them and they become equal in the grave.”

“A fine comparison,” said Sancho, “although not so new that I haven’t heard it many, many times, like the business of the game of chess—while it’s being played, each piece has its particular function, and when the game is over, they’re all mixed up and jumbled together, and they’re put into a bag, which is like finishing one’s life in the grave.”” (P.2, ch.12) 

Same bag. 

Your fat king and your lean beggar is but variable service – two dishes, but to one table. That’s the end. 

3/ Again on the concept of unreliable narrators: 

“And it should be said that when the author got to this point in this true history, he exclaims: “Oh, strong and beyond all exaggeration dauntless Don Quixote de La Mancha, mirror in which all of the valiant men in the world may see themselves, a second and new Manuel de León, who was the glory and honor of Spanish knights! What words can I use to describe this so frightening deed, or with what words can I make future ages believe it, or what praise is there that will not be fitting, no matter how much exaggeration is used? You on foot, alone, intrepid, heroic, with a single sword—and not one of those really sharp ones from Toledo—with a none too shiny or clean steel shield, are waiting for the two fiercest lions that were ever born in the African jungles. Let your own deeds serve as praise, you brave Manchegan—for here I’ll leave your deeds at their height, lacking the words to describe them.”

Here the exclamation of the author ends and he continues, getting back to the thread of his story, saying:…” (P.2, ch.17) 

This is the episode with the lions.

This passage makes me wonder if (the conceit is that) Cide Mahamate Benengeli writes the book in a different tone—earnest, like the chivalry romances—then the story is retold ironically by the unnamed narrator (Cervantes). 

4/ It seems to me that many of my favourite novels are either about everything (Anna Karenina, War and Peace, The Tale of Genji, Hong lou meng…) or about an obsession (Wuthering Heights, Lolita, Kokoro, Rebecca…). 

Moby Dick is both.

Don Quixote is also both. 

In P.2, ch.18, there’s a fascinating conversation where Don Quixote talks about the vast knowledge and virtues of knights errant. He’s obsessed with knights errant like Ishmael’s obsessed with whales.