From: Cervantes: Bulletin of the Cervantes Society of America
12.1 (1992): 139-40.
Copyright © 1992, The Cervantes Society of America
| REVIEW |
|
In this ambitious project, Urbina undertakes
the daunting task of exploring the interrelationships among irony, the grotesque,
and parody in Don Quijote. (As the author acknowledges, he builds
upon various articles he had previously published; only occasionally do brusque
transitions reveal the hidden seams between old and new.) He divides the
study into three substantial chapters. In the first, “La ironía
medieval y el Quijote,” he examines past scholarship on irony
in Cervantes and arrives at a working definition of the term. Then, he argues
convincingly that we as critics must consider the crucial links between Arthurian
romances, especially those by Chrétien de Troyes, and the
Quijote in order to appreciate the parodic nature of the text. He
also considers the role that Cervantine criticism, especially that devoted
to proving “Cervantes's originality,” has played in propagating
inattention to the relationship between the Quijote and the medieval
romance tradition. After establishing this foundation, he proceeds to analyze
five categories of irony based on the model proposed by D. H. Green: thematic
irony, verbal irony, narrative irony, dramatic irony and structural irony.
The second chapter, “Admiración
y risa,” first attempts to define the grotesque, and then examines its
relationship with “admiratio”. The final subsection, “De lo
maravilloso a lo grotesco” employs the analysis of giants and dwarfs
to elucidate the conflict “entre las necesidades de la parodia de crear
un personaje burlesco y el deseo de escribir una historia verosímil
y alegre” (109).
“Parodia y creación,” the
last chapter of the text, again begins with a consideration of the term
“parodia” itself. In addition, the author reflects upon critical
resistance to the classification of the Quijote as a parody. He astutely
argues that to deem the work a parody by no means diminishes it; instead,
it adds yet another dimension to our understanding. After examining “Sancho
Panza, escudero sin par,” he turns his attention to “Don Quijote
como puer senex.” The rather abrupt closing section of the work
dealing with the use of “la aventura guardada” culminates in the
conclusion that “La empresa exclusivamente guardada de la creación
del Quijote se ha convertido en la aventura colectiva de recrear e
interpretar . . . el mito de don
Quijote. . . . [N]os atrevemos a creer que para nosotros
todos la aventura está guardada” (177).
As the preceding outline demonstrates, the
work has many strengths. Nonetheless, it seems necessary to mention a few
troubling elements. At times, despite conscientious efforts to clarify the
use of terminology, the wording becomes imprecise. For instance, in the
introduction, the author refers to “los tres modos narrativos
estudiados: la ironía, lo grotesco y la parodia [emphasis
mine].” Although the discussion focuses on narrative, these cannot be
considered inherently narrative modes; moreover, the phrase
|
|
||
| 140 | AMY R. WILLIAMSEN | Cervantes |
|
|
||
seems to imply a certain parallel among all three which does not exist. The
subsequent clarification that irony “representa la posibilidad de crear
una narración de doble significado . . .”, while the
grotesque “representa la posibilidad de crear una narración
ambivalente . . .” and parody “representa la posibilidad
de crear una narración de carácter paradójico”
proves less than illuminating. In certain instances, the text favors enumeration
in lieu of analysis, as in the discussion of “litotes” in the section
on verbal irony: “Los litotes constituyen un tipo de lenguaje atenuante
particularmente apropiado para la expresión de la ironía. Ocurren
con relativa frecuencia a través de las dos Partes y su análisis
se presta mejor a la enumeración que al comentario” (58).
Nonetheless, the following list, two paragraphs long, could have been
strengthened through the addition of commentary. Another possible source
of bewilderment is the continual reference to “the narrator” of
the Quijote. Although the author acknowledges the existence of various
narrative voices, he usually does not specify to which one he refers. Since
the conflict between narrative levels is a significant source of irony (and
an element of parody, as Urbina himself indicates), it seems that the
unquestioning use of the generic term, “narrador,” might obscure,
rather than illuminate, key instances of irony.
In general, this extremely well-documented
work demonstrates an impressive command of the relevant literature. For this
reason, a few bibliographic omissions seem puzzling. The analysis often refers
to the distance between the author, the narrator, and the characters, yet
Ruth El Saffar's seminal work, Distance and Control in Don Quixote
(Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1975), is never mentioned, not even
in the bibliography. Similarly, it would seem that Leland Chambers' standard
article, “Irony in the Final Chapter of Don Quijote”
(Romanic Review 61 [1970]: 14-22), should be cited, in that it would
offer further support for the author's arguments.
Despite these minimal shortcomings and a very
few typographical errors, the text represents a valuable contribution to
the ever-growing body of Cervantine scholarship. Undoubtedly, it will provoke
welcome debates for years to come.
| AMY R. WILLIAMSEN |
| University of Arizona |
|
|
| Fred Jehle jehle@ipfw.edu | Publications of the CSA | H–Cervantes |
| URL: http://www.h-net.org/~cervantes/csa/artics92/williamsen.htm | ||