What is the relationship between Don Quixote and Sancho Panza in Don Quixote de la Mancha? Don Quixote is a character who has read so many books on chivalry until he imagines that he is indeed a knight-errant. His name is Sancho Panza. Abstract: I discuss the characters Don Quixote and Sancho Panza and their relationship in order to understand better the place of idealistic theory and .. Dulcinea is the most beautiful of women to saying that “God knows whether or not there. Don Quixote does regard himself as God's knight, but he continuously . Don Quixote and Sancho Panza both exalt the will, though the knight.
Evidently he does not, particularly when he and Sancho is surrendered by Cervantes to the sadomasochistic practical jokes - indeed, the vicious and humiliating cruelties - that afflict the knight and squire in part II. Nabokov is very illuminating on this in his Lectures on Don Quixote, published posthumously in From that viewpoint it is one of the most bitter and barbarous books ever penned. And its cruelty is artistic.Adventures of Don Quixote (1933) - Full Classic Movie
To find a Shakespearean equivalent to this aspect of Don Quixote, you would have to fuse Titus Andronicus and The Merry Wives of Windsor into one work, a grim prospect because they are, to me, Shakespeare's weakest plays. Falstaff's dreadful humiliation by the merry wives is unacceptable enough even if it formed the basis for Verdi's sublime Falstaff. Nabokov's answer is aesthetic: That seems to me something of an evasion.
Twelfth Night is comedy unsurpassable, and on the stage we are consumed by hilarity at Malvolio's terrible humiliations. When we reread the play, we become uneasy, because Malvolio's socio-erotic fantasies echo in virtually all of us.
Why are we not made at least a little dubious by the torments, bodily and socially, suffered by Don Quixote and Sancho Panza? Cervantes himself, as a constant if disguised presence in the text, is the answer. He was the most battered of eminent writers.
At the great naval battle of Lepanto, he was wounded and so at 24 permanently lost the use of his left hand. Inhe was captured by Barbary pirates and spent five years as a slave in Algiers.
Ransomed inhe served Spain as a spy in Portugal and Oran and then returned to Madrid, where he attempted a career as a dramatist, almost invariably failing after writing at least 20 plays.
Somewhat desperately, he became a tax collector, only to be indicted and imprisoned for supposed malfeasance in A fresh imprisonment came in ; there is a tradition that he began to compose Don Quixote in jail.
Part I, written at incredible speed, was published in Part II was published in Fleeced of all royalties of part I by the publisher, Cervantes would have died in poverty except for the belated patronage of a discerning nobleman in the last three years of his life. Though Shakespeare died at just 52, he was an immensely successful dramatist and became quite prosperous by holding a share in the actors' company that played at the Globe Theatre.
Circumspect, and only too aware of the government-inspired murder of Christopher Marlowe, and their torture of Thomas Kyd, and branding of Ben Jonson, Shakespeare kept himself nearly anonymous, despite being the reigning dramatist of London.
Harold Bloom on Don Quixote, the first modern novel | Books | The Guardian
Violence, slavery and imprisonment were the staples of Cervantes's life. Shakespeare, wary to the end, had an existence almost without a memorable incident, as far as we can tell.
The physical and mental torments suffered by Don Quixote and Sancho Panza had been central to Cervantes's endless struggle to stay alive and free. Yet Nabokov's observations are accurate: The aesthetic wonder is that this enormity fades when we stand back from the huge book and ponder its shape and endless range of meaning. No critic's account of Cervantes's masterpiece agrees with, or even resembles, any other critic's impressions.
Don Quixote is a mirror held up not to nature, but to the reader. How can this bashed and mocked knight errant be, as he is, a universal paradigm? Don Quixote and Sancho are victims, but both are extraordinarily resilient, until the knight's final defeat and dying into the identity of Quixano the Good, whom Sancho vainly implores to take to the road again.
The fascination of Don Quixote's endurance and of Sancho's loyal wisdom always remains. Cervantes plays upon the human need to withstand suffering, which is one reason the knight awes us.
However good a Catholic he may or may not have been, Cervantes is interested in heroism and not in sainthood. The heroism of Don Quixote is by no means constant: Don Quixote and Sancho Panza both exalt the will, though the knight transcendentalises it, and Sancho, the first post-pragmatic, wants to keep it within limits.
It is the transcendent element in Don Quixote that ultimately persuades us of his greatness, partly because it is set against the deliberately coarse, frequently sordid context of the panoramic book. And again it is important to note that this transcendence is secular and literary, and not Catholic. The Quixotic quest is erotic, yet even the eros is literary.
Still, there is a clear sublimation of the sexual drive in the knight's desperate courage.
The knight in the mirror
Lucidity keeps breaking in, re-minding him that Dulcinea is his own supreme fiction, transcending an honest lust for the peasant girl Aldonza Lorenzo. A fiction, believed in even though you know it is a fiction, can be validated only by sheer will.
I cannot think of any other work where the relations between words and deeds are as ambiguous as in Don Quixote, except once again for Hamlet. Cervantes's formula is also Shakespeare's, though in Cervantes we feel the burden of the experiential, whereas Shakespeare is uncanny, since nearly all his experience was theatrical. So subtle is Cervantes that he needs to be read at as many levels as Dante. Perhaps the Quixotic can be accurately defined as the literary mode of an absolute reality, not as impossible dream but rather as a persuasive awakening into mortality.
The aesthetic truth of Don Quixote is that, again like Dante and Shakespeare, it makes us confront greatness directly. If we have difficulty fully understanding Don Quixote's quest, its motives and desired ends, that is because we confront a reflecting mirror that awes us even while we yield to delight.
Cervantes is always out ahead of us, and we can never quite catch up. Don Quixote is the only book that Dr Johnson desired to be even longer than it already was.
Yet Cervantes, although a universal pleasure, is in some respects even more difficult than are Dante and Shakespeare upon their heights. Are we to believe everything Don Quixote says to us? Does he believe it? He or Cervantes is the inventor of a mode now common enough, in which figures, within a novel, read prior fictions concerning their own earlier adventures and have to sustain a consequent loss in the sense of reality.
This is one of the beautiful enigmas of Don Quixote: The knight is Cervantes's subtle critique of a realm that had given him only harsh measures in return for his own patriotic heroism at Lepanto.
Don Quixote cannot be said to have a double consciousness; his is rather the multiple consciousness of Cervantes himself, a writer who knows the cost of confirmation.
I do not believe the knight can be said to tell lies, except in the Nietzschean sense of lying against time and time's grim "It was". To ask what it is that Don Quixote himself believes is to enter the visionary centre of his story. This curious blend of the sublime and the bathetic does not come again until Kafka, another pupil of Cervantes, would compose stories like "The Hunter Gracchus" and "A Country Doctor".
To Kafka, Don Quixote was Sancho Panza's demon or genius, projected by the shrewd Sancho into a book of adventure unto death. In Kafka's marvellous interpretation, the authentic object of the knight's quest is Sancho Panza himself, who as an auditor refuses to believe Don Quixote's account of the cave.
So I circle back to my question: Does the knight believe his own story? It makes little sense to answer either "yes" or "no", so the question must be wrong. We cannot know what Don Quixote and Hamlet believe, since they do not share in our limitations. Thomas Mann loved Don Quixote for its ironies, but then Mann could have said, at any time: Johnson, who could not abide Jonathan Swift's ironies, easily accepted those of Cervantes; Swift's satire corrodes, while Cervantes's allows us some hope.
Johnson felt we required some illusions, lest we go mad. Is that part of Cervantes's design? Mark van Doren, in a very useful study, Don Quixote's Profession, is haunted by the analogues between the knight and Hamlet, which to me seem inevitable.
Here are the two characters, beyond all others, who seem always to know what they are doing, though they baffle us whenever we try to share their knowledge. It is a knowledge unlike that of Falstaff and Sancho Panza, who are so delighted at being themselves that they bid knowledge to go aside and pass them by.
Sancho Panza jeopardizes himself when he leaves reality. He loses his identity by following Don Quixote. He becomes a new person who is very different than the fisrt one. The ordinary, simple peasant Sancho, who was living with his family in a farm, now is the squire of Don Quixote, a companion of him. He is no longer the farmer Panza and the neighbour of the other farmers.
The road that Sancho follows with Don Quixote is a road which can lead one to madness. During their adventures, Sancho gets caught up in the madness entirely. He starts to believe Dulcianea, the ideal lover of Don Quixote, "Never in my life, have I heard my lady Dulcianea called Dona, but only la Senora Dulcianea del Toboso, so on that point history is wrong.
By this I mean to say that your Grace's conversation is the manure that has been cast upon the barren land of my dry wit, the time that I spend in your service, associating with you, does the cultivating, and as a result of it all, I hope to bring forth blessed fruits by not departing, slipping or sliding, from those paths of good breeding which your Grace has marked out for me in my parched understanding. Don Quixote's conflict, which is caused by his living in an illisuonary world he created, becomes more destructive with Sancho Panza.
Although Sancho seems to be a loyal companion for Don Quixote, he leads his master to be destroyed throughout their adventures. With Sancho Panza, Don Quixote gets lost in illusion more than before. Sancho's desire to be a governor of an island shows that he is an opportunist and a materialistic person. Rather than preventing Don Quixote from his foolish acts, he confirms all the unrealistic attitudes of him.
In a way, he uses Don Quixote. Sancho never stops him, but says, "I myself am of a peaceful disposition and not fond of meddling in the quarrels and feuds of others. At the end of the story, we witness the two changing of their roles. Don Quixote becomes the realistic one who accepts the things he had done as foolish, and Sancho becomes the idealistic one who tries to urge his master to return to illusion.
This shows how negative they affected each other. Don Quixote's returning to reality and his acceptance of the things he had done as foolish, causes him to die.