The Romantic Approach to Don Quixote by Anthony Close (review)

THE ROMANTIC APPROACH TO DON QUIXOTE BY ANTHONY CLOSE (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. 286 pages, $24.95.) For Anthony Close, the tendency of Don Quixote criticism since 1800 to idealize the protagonist, to deny the satiric purpose of the novel, and to interpret its symbolism in modern (that is, anachronistic) terms demonstrates the impact and continuing influence of German Romanticism. The brothers Schlegel, Schelling, Tieck, and Richter, among others, found in or read into Don Quixote the metaphysical and aesthetic preoccupations of their movement. Cervantes emerges as "a philosopher-poet treating through the symbolism of the hero's adventures the universal struggle of the Ideal and the Real" (p. 35), Don Quixote as representative of the Ideal, and the novel as "the epic of Life in its universality" (p. 37). The need to relate the literary work to contemporary sensibility marks the point of contact between German Romanticism and its critical progeny, in all of its diverse manifestations. Américo Castro's El pensamiento de Cervantes (1925) elaborates upon Romantic principles to allow idealization to conform to existentialist and perspectivist inflections in twentieth-century criticism. Methodology progresses, but the judgmental error remains the same: the critic sustains the extra-textual bent of the Romantics and thus becomes increasingly detached from the meaning of the text. According to Close, to negate the burlesque tone of Don Quixote is to negate the primary level of the novel and the creative brilliance of Cervantes; the work is complex and profound as it stands, and to establish a distance between the text and its interpretation is to deny Cervantes' extraordinary achievement in the refinement of the satiric genre. Close's study provides a brilliant synthesis of critical approaches to Don Quixote, of great value in both historical and analytical terms. The argument in favor of burlesque satire is well-sustained and generally convincing, but Close is at times guilty of overstating his case against perspectivist and existential criticism. There is a clear distinction between criticism which treats the text as serious and that which uses the text as a point of departure for extra-literary meanderings. The former would seem to warrant coexistence with comic readings in the case of the quintessential ambiguous novel. EDWARD H. FRIEDMAN* •See preceding review. ROCKY MOUNTAIN REVIEW249 ...