Previous
Tone
Part 1, Chapter 1
Explanation and Analysis—Quixote's Name:
At various points in the novel, Cervantes highlights the unreliability of the narrator, who has obtained the key details of Don Quixote’s story from various historical sources that are themselves somewhat unreliable. In Chapter 1, the narrator acknowledges this lack of precision in the details regarding Don Quixote, whom he presents as a real historical figure, though he is in fact a fictional invention of Cervantes:
Our hidalgo himself was nearly fifty; he had a robust constitution, dried-up flesh and a withered face, and he was an early riser and a keen huntsman. His surname’s said to have been Quixada, or Quesada (as if he were a jawbone, or a cheesecake): concerning this detail there’s some discrepancy among the authors who have written on the subject, although a credible conjecture does suggest he might have been a plaintive Quexana. But this doesn’t matter much, as far as our little tale’s concerned, provided that the narrator doesn’t stray one inch from the truth.
The narrator describes Don Quixote with some approximate details, such as that he was “nearly fifty.” Further, he notes that there is some confusion regarding his name, which some sources have identified as “Quixada” or “Quesada” or “Quexana.” Despite this “discrepancy” on such an important aspect of Quixote’s identity, the narrator dismisses the debate as one that doesn’t “matter much” as long as he “doesn’t stray one inch from the truth.” The narrator, then, insists upon his accuracy despite not even being sure of the name of the main character, underscoring the unreliability of his narration and casting a sense of doubt over the story.
Related Themes:
Part 1, Chapter 9
Explanation and Analysis—Truthfulness:
At various points in the novel, the narrator’s remarks suggest that he is, in some regards, an unreliable narrator whose recounting of events is not always accurate or neutral. Because of the novel’s frame story, which details the narrator’s attempts to track down missing manuscripts, the story of Don Quixote is presented as a patchwork composed by various authors out of an incomplete historical record. This unreliability is emphasized in a passage in which the narrator comments negatively upon a previous author whose writings form the basis for the narrator’s own story:
If there is any objection to be made about the truthfulness of this history, it can only be that its author was an Arab, and it’s a well-known feature of Arabs that they’re all liars; but since they’re such enemies of ours, it’s to be supposed that he fell short of the truth rather than exaggerating it. And this is, indeed, what I suspect he did, because where he could and should have launched into the praises of such an excellent knight, he seems to have been careful to pass them over in silence [...]
Here, the narrator insists, ironically, on the reliability and “truthfulness” of his story while nevertheless casting the story into doubt. The only “objection” he can imagine being raised by the reader is that the original author “was an Arab,” as he believes that Arab people, whom he identifies as “enemies” of the Spanish, are “liars.” The previous author he references here is Cide Hamete Benengeli, a well-educated Moor living in Spain. To further support his argument that Benegeli was unreliable in his recounting, he notes that Benengeli rarely “launched into the praises” of Don Quixote.
Ironically, the narrator reveals his own unreliability here, both in his highly prejudiced statements against Moors, or Muslim people of Arabic and African descent, and in his assumption that Don Quixote truly was a great knight worthy of praise and renown. More often than not, Don Quixote’s actions suggest that he is a well-intentioned though absurd man whose plans to help others regularly backfire.
Related Themes:
