Don Quijote de la Mancha by Miguel de Cervantes (review)

This deluxe edition consists of two hefty hardbound tomes, accentuated by deep cerulean blue dust jackets and coordinated slipcase. It is a revision and update of previous editions, going back to 1998. Beyond the text and notes, the most valuable part of the first volume is the collection of ten probing analyses of foundational topics (1.1349–1642). These alone justify the price of admission. They range widely, from the books of chivalry and the composition of the text to literary theory of that day and even “the narrator” (although the editorial voice is arguably the authoritative presence that staked a claim in 1.8, not the caricature in 1.9). Be that as it may, it is heartening to see the diegetic make modest inroads into the predilection for the mimetic.

Anyone who has edited the Quijote turns immediately to problematic passages. We can consider only three, followed by some editorial desiderata. 1) “En un lugar de la Mancha, de cuyo nombre no quiero acordarme. . . .” Rico concurs with Gaos, Riquer, and others, going back to Cortejón in the early 1900s, that quiero is a null or an auxiliary here, but he maintains that the counterpart in the denouement, “cuyo lugar no quiso poner Cide Hamete puntualmente” (2.74), shows volition: “C[ervantes] recupera el sentido propio del verbo.” This sort of linkage is reminiscent of his treatment of the caso in the Lazarillo. The egregious misattribution to Cide Hamete is ignored, although it casts fresh doubt on the credibility of our editor. Earlier he had stepped out of character, abandoning distance and control, by extravagantly praising Cide Hamete, Don Quijote, Sancho, and Dulcinea (2.40). Two points: 1) Fracturing the frame to introduce Cervantes as agent, rather than focusing on the diegetic puppets he has created and set in motion, creates confusion; and 2) Each pseudoauthor, narrator, or scribbler has an identity pattern. Close reading will clarify who is where at what point and also how individual and collective discrediting occurs, undermining narrative authority. Critical rigor requires that Miguel de Cervantes remain outside the text but also welcomes his occasional autonomous transgressions. He is not a narrator, not a character, but he is the true hero of the work. Don Quijote is a mock hero.

2) “Dicen que en el propio original desta historia se lee que llegando Cide Hamete a escribir este capítulo no le tradujo su intérprete como él le había escrito . . . .” Homage is paid yet again to Diego Clemencín’s edition of the early 1830s, where he called this beginning “una algarabía que no se entiende.” We can understand the passage better today because we have better tools. It is indeed ambiguous but clearly it has to do with orality (dicen que) and literacy (se lee que) and it presents the paradox of having the durable (writing) seek grounding in the ephemeral (speaking), with hearsay as ultimate authority. This propio original is apparently a source text by another hand that is being brought forward, further complicating the chain of transmission and thereby casting renewed doubt on the entire process. There is ample precedent: 1) the “autores hay que dicen” and “otros hay” (1.2); 2) Cide Hamete’s found manuscript (1.9); and 3) the decaying parchment in the lead box (1.52). Following that pattern, the passage further illustrates the futility of seeking grounding by questing after origins, sources, and firsts. It is not an incoherent anomaly but an ingenious recapitulation of significant leitmotifs centering on origins and the interdependence of orality and literacy, highlighted by a rare proleptic analepsis and a potential mise en abîme. For elaboration, see On Cervantes: Essays for L. A. Murillo.

A section of the complementary volume (37–290) offers readings of chapters, including 3) the highly problematic 1.8–9. Claudio Guillén (8) levitates above the narrative level, while Luis Iglesias Feijoo (9) rewrites it. Both...