101
Lanser's approach also suggests that the unnamed «omniscient narrators» of the majority of novels can be associated with the author. And why not? Isn't it in fact Tolstoy who tells us the story of Anna Karenina? That's what novelists are: storytellers. Some novelists, like Henry Fielding and Benito Pérez Galdós, explicitly make it clear that they are telling the stories: that they are the narrators of their novels.
102
The concept of the implied author adds nothing to any consideration of the narrative structure of a work of fiction. This is not the place to elaborate on the subject, but since it is Booth who is most responsible for the concept of the implied author in the place of the historical author, I felt compelled to state in passing my objection. For representative criticism of the concept, see Bal, Genette, Ferguson, Juhl, Killham, Stecker, and Toolan.
103
Since Aristotle's dictum that something cannot be A and not-A at the same time, binary thought has been prevalent in western intellectual discourse. And since Saussure made binaries essential to his structural linguistics, the basis for all French-based literary theory, it is essential to all forms of structuralism, semiotics, and poststructuralism. For critiques of binarism (and dualism in general), see Kosko, Tavris, and Mancing («Against Dualisms»).
104
Presumably those scholars who deny the possibility of a historical personage
within the confines of a fictional text are forced by their theories to deny that
the references to Cervantes in the text (as author of La Galatea in I, 6, or as the
soldier referred to as «tal de Saavedra»
in I, 40; 476) are to the historical Cervantes,
because the author cannot be permitted any entry into his fiction. If the historical
person of flesh and blood cannot be in the text, these textual figures must, by
definition, be complete fictions.
105
I have read versions of this essay on various occasions, starting with the annual Cervantes Lecture at Fordham University in 1991. Other versions have been read at the University of Vermont, Drew University, the University of Kentucky, and my own Purdue University. I would like to thank the many friends and colleagues -particularly Leo Hoar of Fordham University- whose comments have helped me make my presentation more precise.
106
All citations from the «Casamiento engañoso» and the «Coloquio de los perros» are from Harry Sieber's edition of the Novelas ejemplares.
107
Little is known of the «Maricastaña» mentioned by Peralta along with Aesop. Amezúa can say only that the name was a signifier of the remote past in which, among other things, animals had the power of speech (417-18 n. 51).
108
Murillo, for example, argues that the dogs' meditation on their own possibility of discourse, in a world that is otherwise no different than the world that Campuzano and Peralta inhabit, distinguishes the «Coloquio» both from Aesopic fables and from other possible classical models. The «Coloquio» «is distinguishable from other fantasies in which animals speak, Aesop's Fables, The Golden Ass, and the Lucianesque dialogues, as well as the literature of dreams and flights of the seventeenth century. The colloquy is as fantastical as any one of these works, but only because its unrealness is everywhere fixed to a rational plan and a rational criticism of the imaginary event ('milagro', 'portento')» (179). See also Riley, «Antecedents» 167.
109
Compare this, however, to the views of Riley and Murillo (references in the preceding note). They emphasize the realistic nature of the world of the «Coloquio» outside of the dogs' ability to converse.
110
Ruth El Saffar, in discussing the episode of Cañizares, seems to confuse the
dogs of the «Coloquio» with the men of the «Casamiento engañoso» as the ones
who mention Aesop by name: «The witch invites us to ask not whether dogs can
behave like men, but rather, whether men, under the influence of the devil, can
behave like dogs. She converts the story from an idle animal fable to one of deep
moral dimensions. Through her we move from Aesop, whom the dogs cited in
their opening speculation about their gift of speech, to Apuleius, to whose Golden
Ass the witch refers»
(63). Berganza's mention of Aesop comes long after their
opening speculations about their ability to speak, so perhaps El Saffar is thinking of Peralta's reference to the fabulist near the end of the «Casamiento».