Previous
Dramatic Irony
Part 1, Chapter 2
Explanation and Analysis—Salted Cod:
Don Quixote’s speech and thought are marked by obvious fallacies as a result of his profound state of confusion regarding reality and fiction. His characteristically faulty reasoning is displayed when he is offered some salted fish in an inn:
They asked him if he’d like some of this troutling, because that was all the fish there was. ‘If you have a goodly number of troutlings,’ replied Don Quixote, ‘they will serve me as well as a trout, because it makes no difference to me whether I am given eight separate reals or a single piece of eight. What is more, it might even be that these troutlings are like veal, which is better than beef, or like kid, which is better than goat. But whatever this fish is, let it be served [...]'
At the inn, Don Quixote is offered salted cod, which is the only type of food that is available. Accepting this offer, Don Quixote first argues that several small fish are equivalent to a “trout,” a larger fish, notwithstanding the difference in species. Further, he reasons that a baby fish is equivalent to the meat of other baby animals. Much as veal is “better than beef” and kid is “better than goat,” Quixote mistakenly suggests that the meat of a small fish is "better" than that of a larger fish. Quixote, then, observes a pattern in two examples and fallaciously over-applies it as a rule to all forms of meat. Here, as elsewhere in the novel, Don Quixote combines reasonable arguments with fallacies, reflecting his disordered perspective.
Related Themes:
Part 2, Chapter 1
Explanation and Analysis—The Size of Giants:
When Quixote returns to his village, badly injured and exhausted, the doctor and barber attempt to test his sanity. Though he at first appears quite lucid and reasonable, he soon launches into a defense of knights errant and expresses his belief in fantastical creatures such as giants. When asked about the size of giants, he responds with a characteristic mix of logos and fallacy:
‘With regard to giants,’ replied Don Quixote, ‘there are different opinions as to whether they ever existed or not [...] I cannot speak with certainty as to the size of Morgante, although I suspect that he cannot have been very tall; and I am inclined to this opinion by reading in the history where his exploits are described in detail that he often slept under a roof, and since he found houses in which there was room for him it is evident that he was not excessively large.’
At various points in the novel, Quixote combines reasonable arguments with absurdities, blending logos with fallacy. Here, he attempts to calculate the size of giants. Though he first notes that there has been some debate about “whether they ever existed or not,” he quickly affirms their existence and begins to calculate their size. Considering a famous giant from an Italian epic poem named Morgante as an example, he reasons that Morgante could not have been “excessively large” as he is described in the poem as sleeping in ordinary houses. Quixote, then, has made a logical argument based on the fallacious premise that events described in literature are invariably true.
Related Themes:
