Ana içeriğe atla

Corrupted Priest in Don Quixote

 

 

         Don Quixote, namely Quesada, is delusional. He presents himself as a noble knight although, he is not a knight and it is impossible to encounter a knight in the plot’s current time. When this is noticed by his niece, a barber, a priest and a housekeeper they decide to burn the books in order to cure Quixote. However the barber and the priest find some of the books worth keeping and hence they decide to “banish” them or imprison them by building a wall to “close the room where he had kept his books” (p.64) Here the author, Cervantes creates a personification of the mentioned books in the pursuit of forming a satire for church and its corruption.

         The priest claims that he will hold inquisitions over the books which is absurd and unnecessary. What is more absurd and demonstrates the priest’s inconsistency is his method of decreeing. He decrees the books according to the author’s ability to present the plot and quality of the book whereas he supposedly should take cognizance of books’ potential to be detrimental for Quixote. The priest on the verge of condemning “the first book of chivalries printed in Spain” (p.57) shifts his mind to pardon it solely because the barber said it is unprecedentedly well written. This demonstrates how the priest lacks reasoning as he is judging the books or how he decides in the drive that is advantageous to him. Moreover, the books represent the people who are judged by the church and the way books are judged is neither fair nor rational. Consequently, this becomes a criticize for church which proposes that church condemn people in church’s favor. When the housekeeper suggests burning all the books and purifying the room the priest laughs “at the housekeeper’s simplicity.” (p.57) Priest belittles the housekeeper and this indicates that he does not lack reasoning, but he intentionally chooses what book to burn according to his liking. Priest describes the Florismarte of Hyrcania’s style as “so harsh and dry he deserves nothing better” (p.58) and proceeds to condemn it to be burnt. Regardless of the books’ influence or whether the priest is certain of their influence, he makes a selfish judgement plainly considering the author’s style. Miguel de Cervantes depicts this priest as selfish and seemingly unreasonable, to criticize the church’s corruption, in other words, the church makes decision accordingly to the church’s favor thus leading a corruption and inconsistency. This inconsistency is most explicit when the priest and the barber decides to build a wall to obscure Quixote from reading the books. They reason this decision by asserting that “if the cause were removed, the effect might cease; and they might say that an enchanter had carried them off room and all” (p.64). Nonetheless, the most reasonable solution is suggested by the housekeeper who represents the common folk which is burning them all. In this way, the books will be gone, and the effect will be diminished since the cause is annihilated. However, this will not be in the favor of the priest as he wants some of the books to remain. He suggests to deceive Quixote and say “an enchanter had carried them off, room and all.” (p.64) This is a clear foreshadowing that Quixote will be delusional because the one of the elements of chivalry-based stories is supernatural elements and priest cloaked his lie by adverting on something that is supernatural relating to chivalry, whereas he should efface the theme knighthood and knight, from Quixote’s perception.

          Ultimately, the priest accomplished his goal, he burnt the books he despised, kept the ones he liked but he failed to help Quixote. Building a wall stands for the priest’s selfishness, he builds the wall solely to keep the books he considers worth keeping. Therefore, his main concern as he realizes shifts leading him to appear in the plot selfish. The housekeeper stands as a contrast to the priest, she is uneducated and unwise yet she on the surface asserts the most reasonable suggestion and she is laughed at. This demonstrates how the common folk’s favor is taken into consideration by the church creating a fragment of satire for church.

 

Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. The Adventures of Don Quixote. Tr. J.M. Cohem. London: Penguin, 1950.

Yorumlar

Yorum Gönder

Bu blogdaki popüler yayınlar

Rhetoric in Hobbes' Leviathan

  Hobbes’ Word Play Hobbes argues in favor of a monarch or an oligarch. To be more precise, he is in favor of the idea that multiplicity comes with complexity, harming the integrity of the state. In his opinion, men are mostly power-driven, greedy beings who must surrender themselves to a sovereign power that can spread the terror of punishment. According to Hobbes, this fear of punishment is the only effective motivating force that can keep people from brutally murdering each other. While this Hobbesian idea of the state portrays the sovereign’s subjects almost as though they are slaves, this essay will argue that Hobbes is not fundamentally against liberty and allows it within the constraints of laws. Hobbes's description of liberty suggests that only external impediments are against freedom. He states that liberty is “the absence of external impediments” (189) and, although these impediments may take away man’s power to do what he would, they do not prevent men from using th...
1 yorum
Devamı

Rousseau on Legitimacy of State

Hobbes'dan sonra Rousseau okumayı Proust'tan sonra Daphnes ve Chloe okumaya benzetiyorum. Proust aşkı öyle yapay, çıkarcı ve öyle çirkin yansıtıyor ki, ondan sonra okuduğun her romana ister istemez Proust'un realist bakış açısından bakıyorsun. Belki de realizm sevdamı bırakmalıyımdır. Hobbes'un determinist bakış açısı da birçok argümanını epey ikna edici kılıyor. Bazen bu bakış açısından kaçmak istiyor insan. Hobbes kimmiş lan, ben ölümlü tanrıya irademi falan teslim edemem, gayet özgürüm demek istiyor. Yine de gel gör ki Hobbes haklı. Nasıl, Kant ödev ahlakında nasıl ki herkes davranışlarının topluma yansıdığını varsayarak hareket etmeli diyorsa, Hobbes da yapılmak istemediğini yapma diyor. Buna karşı çıkmak da biraz zor. Rousseau abi Social Contract'ında denese de Emile kitabındaki ikna ediciliğini devam ettiremiyor gibi hissediyorum. Birazdan okuyacak olduğun yazıda da oldukça soyut fikirler göreceksin ve yer yer kendine e ama niye diye soracaksın. Bil ki ben de ...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı

Hobbes’ Paradox

Hobbes’ Paradox Resolved According to Hobbes, people are born with passions that ultimately lead them into a never-ending war. They require artificial power to stop killing each other. Unless such a power is erected, Hobbes suggests, leaving the state of nature is impossible since people are not inclined to cooperate and trust each other. The core reason why it is impossible to leave the state of nature is because of the innate passions people have that drive them to be constantly in conflict. Hobbes states that in the condition of nature, “any reasonable suspicion” renders any covenant or promise invalid since “bonds of words are too weak to bridle men’s ambition, avarice, anger, and other passions…” (196). Here, Hobbes highlights the importance of punishments, suggesting that without the motivating fear of punishments, covenants are practically invalid. It is also important to understand what Hobbes means by the condition of nature. He argues that because men are born equal, they...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı