From: Cervantes: Bulletin of the Cervantes Society of America
16.1 (1996): 112.
Copyright © 1996, The Cervantes Society of America
Professor Finellos objection to my review appears to be three-fold. First, that I am simplistic in stating that he has made Sancho and Dulcinea indistinguishable. On page 83 of his book we read: Sancho and Dulcinea [not Aldonza, be it noted] of course can be counted among the novels most significant rustic personages. Second, that I am unfair in failing to note that Klaus Theweleits view of pastoral as a game is the basis of Part III of Finellos book. My point is that Theweleit, following Norbert Elias (to whom Finello refers), foregrounds pastorals game not as playful but as an ideological apparatus which, to quote my review, produces the very realities the 17th-century courtly society wanted the classes beneath them to take for granted as reality. Is it likely that Cervantes was unaware of this power play as he set up his rural charades, and finally led Don Quijote to the centers of ducal and bourgeois power and illusion making? The question has to be posed. Lastly, Professor Finello finds it unfair that when he lists Grisóstomo, Marcela, Cardenio, Basilio, and the Gentleman in Green as Arcadian figures (p. 102), I call them a mixed bag. His response that Cardenio is surely associated with the pastoral is symptomatic of the syncretic vagueness and the analytical weakness to which my review drew attention.
|University of Hartford|
review of Finello's book Pastoral
Themes and Forms in Cervantess Fiction appeared in Cervantes
15.2 (1995). This current piece is a response
to Finello's reaction Finello Replies to
Jehenson, which is also given in this issue (Cervantes
16.1 ). -FJ.
||Prepared with the help of Sue Dirrim||
|Fred Jehle firstname.lastname@example.org||Publications of the CSA||HCervantes|