Selecciona una palabra y presiona la tecla d para obtener su definición.


Nowhere in her study does Wiltrout treat Leandra, but one might mentally compare her while reading these words about Marcela and Dorotea: «Ambas son ricas, más nobles en acciones que en linaje, razón por la cual están en mayor libertad para forjar su propio destino, y también se marcharon de su casa en busca de una solución radical a un problema amoroso. En ambos casos la nobleza en las acciones de las mujeres excede la de los hombres que las siguen o las abandonan» (170). Leandra is a somewhat of a reverse image: she shares the basic characteristics, but her action is hardly noble; in fact she dragged herself down to Vicente's level. There is a faint resemblance to Zoraida, another woman whose goal is escape rather than sexual satisfaction. While these three receive Cervantes' approbation (Zoraida only implicitly), Leandra does not, rather seems to be left in limbo.



So also Ullman: «Marcela and Leandra each obtain a drove of admirers who behave in the same way, thus bringing about similar situations. Yet the two heroines are totally different. The first left home alone and, though surrounded by men, appears utterly devoid of erotic interest in the opposite sex and manages to maintain her freedom and honor; the second left home with a man, and as a result has lost her freedom, her honor, and the company of men» (313), honor here, I presume, in the sense of fama. Comparing Eugenio to Grisóstomo is inconclusive except as an indication of the degree of «lovingness», the latter's all-encompassing and obsessive, the other's rather more tepid, if not detached (cf. Zimic: «El suicidio de Grisóstomo responde a parecidos caprichos y resentimiento de la vanidad herida» [72]). Was each «enamorment» less romance and more an intellectual exercise prompted by pastoral literature? If so, is one to believe that Marcela existed solely as object of stylized amatory declamation, and Leandra merely as an unwitting target for misogynist clichés, each would-be «pastoralized» lover doomed to frustration from the very beginning but ignorant thereof because of egotistical tunnel vision?



I translate Avalle-Arce's apt phrase. He has pointed out that «[q]ue los hablantes mienten es experiencia diaria, pero que lo haga el relator de la obra es inconcebible. [...] Pero la mentira como urdimbre de la técnica literaria esto fue maravilloso invento cervantino» (172).



John Loftis, «English Renaissance Plays from the Spanish Comedia», English Literary Renaissance 14 (2) (1984): 230-248.



Rita Gnutzmann, «Don Quixote in England de Henry Fielding con relación al Don Quijote de Cervantes», Anales Cervantinos XXII (1984): 77-101.



Francis Beaumont y John Fletcher, The Knight of the Burning Pestle, ed. J. W. Lever (London: Longmans, 1962): VIII.



Francis Beaumont, The Knight of the Burning Pestle, ed. Andrew Gurr (University of California Press, 1968).



Steven H. Gale, «The Relationship between Beaumont's The Knight of the Burning Pestle and Cervantes' Don Quijote», Anales Cervantinos XI (1972): 87-96.



Francis Beaumont (y John Fletcher?), The Knight of the Burning Pestle, ed. M. L. Wine, (New York: Modern Library, Random House Inc. 1969): 301, 35-36 y 44.



Miguel de Cervantes, Don Quijote de la Mancha, ed. John J. Allen, (Madrid: Cátedra, Letras Hispánicas, 1986).