Chekhov's Mistress
The Novel’s the Thing
Last week I found myself sucked into the romance of Anselmo, Camilia and Lotario and getting used to the idea of Cervantes’ layers. This tragic tale of a love triangle is a novella being read by the priest who resides in the novel we are reading, which is a translation of a “true” account of the story of Don Quixote, our Gentleman of Le Mancha. The twisting loyalties, operatic falling in love, the secrets and deceptions all reminded me of Shakespeare. There was even a play within the novella, when Camilia gave a brilliant performance of the chaste wife for her unwitting, hidden husband. And just when Shakespeare comes to mind – although I imagine that these story telling techniques were somewhat common then – Lotario compares Camilia’s play acting to Portia’s [p.303], who, in The Merchant of Venice, disguised herself as someone else. Keep in mind that Dorotea is in the audience while the priest reads this novella, and it is Dorotea that is part of a deception of Don Quixote and she herself is part of a complicated love story within the greater story of the Man of La Mancha.
I don’t mean to go overboard on the Shakespeare comparison because I’m not suggesting any particular influence, however, the stories within the stories within the stories tend to be about lovers misunderstanding one another or deceiving one another. These disconnects seem to reflect the disconnect of Quixote’s futile love for Dulcinea (which is based on Quexana’s unnoticed and unrequited love for Aldonza Lorenzo, both of which are the true names of the characters in our true story); the deception of the priest, Dorotea and the barber over Quixote; and the ongoing deception of Sancho by Quixote, not to mention the staging that Don Quixote himself performs and the play acting that those around him perform to accommodate his madness. The play, it seems, is the thing.
Cervantes gives us many opportunities to tell us his point or points. I’d be interested in what others think. Are these layers of stories adding something to a “moral” of Don Quixote or are they just stories for the sake of stories?
p.s. I still intend to post a follow up to Ana Maria’s comment on DQ’s cowardice and maybe even some relevant passages from Walker Percy’s essay that I mentioned in the comments to Anne’s earlier post.
comments
Having just finished chapter 35, I find it provides not only another example of Cervantes’s layers, but also another Arabian Nights-like cliffhanger/interruption that pulls us back to the ‘present’, as at the end of Chapter 8; here, instead of Cervantes interrupting Quixote’s story with false academia, Quixote interrupts Anselmo’s story with farce slapstick.
Also it provides another contradiction in Quixote’s ‘history’. Quixote is obviously set in Cervantes’s own era, yet he claims it’s adapted from an ancient history recorded by Benengeli; you might as well claim to have found an ancient Arabian manuscript describing personal computers and the Internet. Before Anselmo’s story is begun, the curate argues that romanticised notions of chivalry never really existed. So here Cervantes adds another contradiction by setting himself at loggerheads with his own characters!
So what’s the point? Is Cervantes trying to parody the impossibility of Quixote’s romanticised chivalric notions, not just directly by pointing them up, but indirectly by filling his narrative with them? I think Cervantes may be comparing Quixote’s (and Anselmo’s) idealism to the curate’s (and Lotario’s) practicality. Lotario is the voice of reason, warning that Anselmo’s scheme to test Camila’s fidelity may not work out as planned, even while reluctantly agreeing to play suitor. Anselmo’s ideal of Camila’s fidelity is analogous to Quixote’s ideal of chivalry: she gives in to Lotario’s wooing almost as quickly as Quixote’s cardboard helmet gave in to the sword, although he, being a sentient being rather than a metal blade, rapidly withdraws.
At the end of the story, the curate remarks that no husband could possibly be crazy enough to try Anselmo’s scheme… despite the “history” having a man crazy enough to try a knight-errantry scheme. Take your pick: either the curate is stubbornly small-minded and unimaginative, or the fictional character is asserting his own fictionality. Maybe both.
– Matthew Miller (06/06 at 12:22 AM)
Yeah, I think what you pinpointed Matthew is that Cervantes’ layers all give him an opportunity to tell the same story (or more likely moral or point) from different angles. I can’t say anything definitive, but if it were too easy, we probably wouldn’t be reading the book 400 years later.
Thanks!
Bud
– Bud Parr (06/07 at 03:29 PM)
Page 1 of 1 pages of comments
Creative Commons License Deed Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported
You are free:
- to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
-
Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
-
No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
- For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page.
- Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
- Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights.
This is a human-readable summary of the Legal Code (the full license):
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/legalcode
This site employs rank-denial and other anti-spam measures.
Your link here will do nothing for your rankings or traffic. Off-topic comments will be deleted.
Previous entry: Get Rich Quick
About this Post
- Posted by: Bud Parr
- Date: June 01, 2005
- Filed Under:
Wise Men Fish Here: Literature
- Comments:2
- Links to this Post: Technorati
