Regardless of what non-Hispanist scholars of the novel may see in the Quijote (for an extreme case, see Arthur Efron, «Don Quijote» and the Dulcineated World [University of Texas Press, 1971), and my forthcoming review in QIb), recent criticism has tended to diminish the importance of the Quijote both in relation to Cervantes' other works and to Spanish literature in general. It has finally been realized that the enigmatic Persiles was considered by Cervantes to be his masterpiece, as suggested by the well-known statement in the dedication to Part II of the Quijote; see Tilbert Stegmann, Cervantes' Musterroman «Persiles» (Hamburg: Lüdke, 1971), and Alban K. Forcione, Cervantes, Aristotle, and the «Persiles» (Princeton University Press, 1970 ) and Cervantes' Christian Romance. A Study of «Persiles y Sigismunda» (Princeton University Press, 1972), although each of these goes beyond explaining Cervantes' reasons for thinking the Persiles superior to saying that Cervantes in fact accomplished more with the Quijote (Forcione, an exploration of the nature of truth; Stegmann, the presentation of a variety of perspectives), a paradoxical position which neither documents convincingly. (See also Rafael Osuna, «El olvido del Persiles», BRAE, 48 [1968], 55-75). Francisco Ayala attacks the Quijote's preeminence from the standpoint of the Novelas ejemplares, in «Notas sobre la novelística cervantina», RHM, 31 (1965), 37-46.

Within the Iberian peninsula, the Quijote was neither such an overwhelming publishing success as has sometimes been thought, nor did it have any significant influence. See the present author's «Dígalo Portugal, Barcelona y Valencia: Una nota sobre la popularidad de Don Quijote», Hispanófila, S2 (1974), P. E. Russell, «Don Quixote as a Funny Book», MLR, 64 (1969), 312-26, and D. Quitter, «The Image of the Quixote in the Seventeenth Century», DA, 23 (1963), 4363-64.

Don Quixote: Hero or Fool? A Study in Narrative Technique Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1969). There are reviews by Ruth Snodgrass El Saffar in MLN, 85 (1970), 269-73, by Alberto Sánchez, ACerv, 10 (1972), 221-22, by E. C. Riley, HR, 39 (1971), 450-53, by Fernando Salinero, Hispania, 53 (1970), 335-36, by Victor Oelschläger, South Atlantic Bulletin, 37 (1972), 75-86; by Jennifer Lowe, BHS, 47 (1970), 156-57; by Louis Pérez, Symposium, 24 (1970), 17476; by Teresa Aveleyra, NRFH, 20 (1972), 142-45; and by Arthur Beringer, Hispanófila, 40 (1970), 67-68. (My thanks to Dr. Allen for calling several of these to my attention).

«The Function of the Norm in Don Quixote», MPh, 55 (1958), 154-63

In his chapter «Cervantes y la caballeresca» in the forthcoming Suma cervantina (London: Tamesis, 1973), Riquer points out that the decrease in archaisms is explained by the diminished rôle of the narrator in relation to that of the characters. (My thanks to Juan Bautista Avalle-Arce for letting me read Riquer's manuscript).

See my «Pero Pérez, the Priest and His Comment on Tirant lo Blanch», MLN, 83 (1973), 324.

The canon is more respectful of Don Quijote, but ends up playing along with him and Sancho (I, 49, 50), and finally laughing at Don Quijote's injuries at the hands of the cabrero (I, 52).

The adventure of the Cave of Montesinos illustrates well the fact that characterization, which was, with enigmatic exceptions (La lozana andaluza, Lazarillo), not a concern of fiction in the same way as today, was of secondary interest to Cervantes, and he would readily sacrifice the consistency of his characters if he could gain a laugh thereby. As Don Quijote demonstrates on numerous occasions (if I may be allowed the assumption that data from one part of the book can legitimately be used to explicate a different part) that he knows perfectly well what a chivalric situation should be like, it diminishes his credibility as a character for him fast to imagine, then uneventfully tell, such humorous details as the salt put on Durandarte's heart. (Even Madariaga supports seeing Don Quijote's personality here as at variance with his presentation elsewhere, although I would reject his suggestion of Don Quijote's conscious and deliberate invention of his narration in this chapter, as it contains too many self-deflations).

Sancho's personality is also tampered with when a humorous purpose would be served. The clearest example of this is during his governorship, when he miraculously displays the wisdom of Solomon to allow Cervantes to use some old jokes. Similarly, when Sancho returns to the Sierra Morena after first «visit» to Dulcinea, during the visit to El Toboso, and elsewhere, his imaginative faculty suddenly disappears and he repeatedly gives realistic details which, amusingly, arouse Don Quijote's ire, when what we know of Sancho's personality would lead us to expect a more convincing story. The ridiculous overuse of proverbs in Part II (discounting the possibility, to my mind unlikely, that Cervantes is making fun of his readers) detracts rather than contributes to his character.

In the following few notes I am restricting myself to my edition of Diego Ortúñez de Calahorra's Espejo de príncipes y cavalleros, Clásicos Castellanos (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1970, a romance which Cervantes knew and the only later one available in a modern edition. Compare Don Quijote's descent with Rosicler's entrance to the Cave of Artidón (II, 4) or with Sacridoro's suicidal jump into the fountain, following Rosicler (II, 20).

This was also a classic custom. See my note at the conclusion of Espejo, I, 1.

As with Claridiana, the female knight-errant, in Espejo, I, 1.