Herraiz 1

Alicia Herraiz

Los nombres de Alonso Quijano y Don Quijote: The Names of Alonso Quijano and . Imagining and building a Hero

In the novel’s prologue, Cervantes declares himself to be not the father but the stepfather of Don Quixote. This is quite appropiate, as it means that don Quixote’s father is Alonso Quijano. It is the “hidalgo” who creates the character when he gives him the honorific title “don”, his name, Quixote, and the surname “de la Mancha”. It will also be him who christens the old nag horse and the peasant girl, turning them into steed and lady. These are the two main components that complete the knight errant figure, besides an endless number of giants, wizards and witches whose names also answer to don

Quixote’s imagination.

Cervantes ascribes a great deal of importance to names and he is extremely careful when picking them. He is aware of the existence of an association between the word, (the name), and the name-bearer. In the same way that a Sancho Rodriguez would not be half as funny as a , the choice of the word “panza” (paunch) cannot be fortuitous.

In this regard, Caballero Calderón writes “all the first chapter of Quixote and even a few more, could be called of Names or Nomenclature” (cited by Gaos, 53, nº 18)

1. Precisely, the first pages of the novel are committed almost exclusively to the search for a good name. Alonso Quijano devotes more days to the selection of the name than to obtaining a helmet in working order (eight to one day, respectively). The lexical hesitation around the nobleman‘s name is also quite significant. Cervantes, or more

1 “todo el primer capítulo del Quijote, y algunos más, pudieran llamarse de los Nombres o la Nomenclatura.” (en Gaos, 53, nº 18). Herraiz 2 accurately, Cide Hamete Benegeli (the narrator), writes that the good hidalgo “had the surname Quijada or Quesada, there is some differences on the authors who write about this case, although a plausible surmise is that he was called Quejana”2 (Cervantes 71).

Ultimately, the final version will be Alonso Quijano. Thus, we have four versions of the book’s main character’s name yet it is said that “this is not relevant to our story”

(Cervantes 71)3. Gaos writes in this regard to clarify that “this onomastic hesitance, of which there are numerous examples, doesn’t entail, as it used to be thought, any carelessness on Cervantes part”4 (Gaos, 53 nº 18). Of course it doesn’t. It is a delicate way to draw attention to the steadiness of don Quixote’s name.

In case this wasn’t clear enough, Cervantes unfolds a trail of clues for the reader, inviting them to think more on that topic. The first breadcrumb lays with , with whom “four days went by thinking which name to give him” (Cervantes 76)5. Four very active days, as the name selection is not a sloveny activity. “Don Quixote shaped, erased and deleted, added, undid and turned in his memory and imagination”(Cervantes 76)6 until he hit on the perfect name. An herculean task! And, for what? Wouldn’t the poor horse have a name already? It can very well be thought so, and yet it is implicit that that mysterious name wasn’t to don Quixote’s liking, nor was it appropriate to Rocinante’s new life.

Then, in a proportionate way, Alonso Quijano, or Quesada, employs eight busy days to find the appellative “don Quijote de la Mancha”, taking the opportunity to

2 “tenía el sobrenombre de Quijada, o Quesada, que en esto hay alguna diferencia en los autores que de este caso escriben; aunque por conjeturas verosímiles se deja entender que se llamaba Quejana.” (Cervantes 71) 3 “esto importa poco a nuestro cuento”( Cervantes 71), 4 “esta vacilación onomástica, de la que hay repetidos ejemplos, no entraña, como se imaginó, descuido alguno por parte de Cervantes.”(Gaos, 53) 5 “cuatro días se le pasaron [a Don Quijote] en imaginar qué nombre le pondría” (Cervantes 76). 6 Don Quijote formó, borró y quitó, añadió, deshizo y tornó a hacer en su memoria e imaginación” (Cervantes 76). Herraiz 3 introduce a new idea: the relationship between the name and the name-bearer, since the whole region of la Mancha would be honored by having its name associated with the glorious figure of the knight errant.

Let’s return to Rocinante and his unexpected christening. Obviously, Rocinante’s first name wasn’t “suitable for the new order and exercise he was already professing”

(Cervantes 76)7. Equally, don Quixote finds a name for the peasant girl that “wasn’t much beneath his and that was inclined to and resembled that of a princess and great lady” (Cervantes 78)8. As Gaos points out, (62, nº 101) “Don Quixote isn’t just proud of himself, but of everything he owns”9. Consequently, he can’t abide for his belongings to have a common name.

The fact that he needs them to change names reveals that names are truly important and must be adjusted to the state of the named. A valid name for a “hidalgo” is not good enough for a knight errant, thus, if the person changes their state they must also logically change their name. This way, the name signals its bearer, defining and identifying them.

Not every name is suitable for every state. More specifically, in the case of the characters in books of chivalry, may they be knights, ladies or monsters, the names must fulfill three conditions: beauty, strangeness and power. These conditions are not a mere fancy of Don Quixote, but Cervantes’ penetrating observation of the prevailing trend on naming conventions in books of chivalry. On this matter, Francisco Rodriguez Marín’s notes are particularly enlightening:

7 “no convenía a la nueva orden y al nuevo ejercicio que ya profesaba” (Cervantes 76) 8 “que no desdijese mucho del suyo y que tirase y se encaminase al de princesa y gran señora” (Cervantes 78). 9 “Don Quijote no se enorgullece solo de sí mismo, sino de todo cuanto le pertenece” (Gaos 62, nº 101) Herraiz 4

In putting names to the main characters of his novel, Cervantes was following the

common practice on the authors of books of chivalry, to which fray Pedro de

Vega referred on his Declaration of seven penitential psalms (. . .) “Even in their

books of chivalry the authors want to be new Adams. To name a giant, they go

around making up names, that their mere syllables when pronounced sound hair-

rising and show the ferocity of the giant, a Traquitantos, a Fierabrás and others

such as this; and to name a maiden or a lady they seek that the very same name be

delicate and finicky: that the word shows its meaning by itself”10 (Rodriguez

Marín 98)

For once, don Quixote is a good student of the books of chivalry and attempts to find a name for his horse that is “famous and thunderous” (Cervantes 76)11; in the same way he thinks that the term “Dulcinea” is right because it is “musical, outlandish and significative”(Cervantes 78)12. Don Quixote understands perfectly well naming conventions, but whether his wit and skills allow him to enforce them with grace and success is another question.

Before paying more attention to the good selection of names, it is necessary to analyze those three characteristics: beauty, outlandishment and power.

10 En el poner nombres a los personajes principales de su novela Cervantes seguía la común práctica de los autores de libros de caballerías, a la cual se refirió fray Pedro de Vega en su Declaración de los siete psalmos penitenciales (. . .) “También en los libros de caballerías quieren sus autores ser otros Adanes. Para nombrar un gigante, andan inventando nombres, que sus mismas sílabas pronunciadas parezca que van erizando los cabellos y mostrando la fiereza del jayan, un Traquitantos, un Fierabrás, y otros tales: y para nombrar una doncella o dama procuran que el mismo nombre sea delicado y melindroso: que el mismo vocablo vaya mostrando lo que significa.” (Rodriguez Marín 98) Ortografía modernizada. 11 “famoso y de estruendo” (Cervantes 76) 12 “músico y peregrino y significativo (Cervantes78)”, Herraiz 5

About the first one, perhaps the term “esthetic” would be more appropriate. The name, the group of sounds, must awake certain emotions within whoever hears it. In the case of the lady, it will “sound” beautiful, sweet and harmonic, a name that is more melody than word. On the other hand, the names of monsters and giants will be hard and rough to the tongue, names that evoke ugliness and evil. Don Quixote’s resounding failure when christening his first enemy as the giant Caraculiambro, “Big Buttface” must be mentioned here. There is no critical edition of Don Quixote where the commentator doesn’t make an annotation of this; for undoubtedly it is not harmonic, it does not evoke anything beautiful, sweet or musical, and even though it refers to someone ugly, it is not fright, precisely, that first comes to the reader’s mind. Don Quixote is right, perhaps, on the ugliness but not in the ferocity.

As for knights’ names, these are more difficult, since it is necessary to reach a balance between goodness and strength. The name should neither be so sweet as to imply that the errand knight is a flower girl, nor so strong as to make him look like a brute. On a side note, following this thought, the question should be raised whether this is the reason behind the hesitation around the name of Orlando, or Roldán, Rolando or Rotolando.

The second condition for a good name is for it to be exotic, strange to the ear.

This is very sensible, since it is supposed to identify exceptional people. It just wouldn’t do to fight a giant called John, Kenneth or Gavin, who could easily be mistaken with any of the other thousands johns, kenneths and gavins, thus taking away some the glory of the combat and forcing the knight into giving irritating explanations. The name, to avoid any confusion, must be as unique and unusual as the person who carries it. Herraiz 6

The last characteristic of the names is the most suggestive and obscure. A significative name. But, don’t all names have a meaning? Of course they do! There lies the key, in a belief that is unconsciously followed even today: that of the secret power of words. Tacitly, we understand that a word has the qualities of the designed object and that those qualities, drop by drop, permeate in to the person thus called. As if by calling the thistle a “rose”, it could slowly become into a real rose.

Regardless of whether this is so or not, nobody wants to risk having a bad name, one with a meaning to which we don’t want to get too close for fear of dire consequences.

For this reason it is common when naming girls to use, for example, flowers, between many others images of beauty and kindness. The name acts as a kind of amulet, bonding together its meaning to the individual in a reciprocal link. Thus, the name affects the individual in the same way that the person can affect the name. Through unheard of acts, the name acquires connotations that remain even after the person’s death.

This said, let’s return to the names chosen by Alonso Quijano / don Quixote and see if they abide satisfactorily to the three conditions of beauty, exotism and powerful meaning.

Rocinante doesn’t seem like a bad name, and don Quixote’s satisfaction at finding a word that is unusual, high and resounding, is understandable. However, the logic behind its meaning is a tad unstable. Don Quixote says that the name states “what it had been as a nag, before what it was now” (Cervantes 76)13.Which isn’t bad at all. His ride has been a nag, a famished horse with little value transformed when entering its new life serving a knight. However don Quixote’s explanation doesn’t stop here, and he adds that

13 “lo que había sido cuando fue rocín, antes de lo que ahora era” (Cervantes 76). Herraiz 7 what the horse is now is “before and first of all the world’s nags” (Cervantes 76)14. This can be read in two different ways. Either Rocinante is placed “before” the nags as any other average steed would be, which isn’t much of a promotion; or he is the biggest and foremost nag in the world and therefore the worst imaginable horse. This is Diego

Clemencín’s interpretation and without a doubt this is how the public would read it too, especially when the name is linked to the mocking descriptions of the horse. Thus, it can not be said that don Quixote was successful in this endeavor, due to his insistence on keeping the word “rocín”, “nag” against the much more positive “corcel”, “steed”.

On the unparalleled Dulcinea, her case is significant because although she is never heard, she is the only one of all the renamed characters whose original name is known without doubt or hesitance: Aldonza Lorenzo, daughter of Lorenzo Corchuelo (corker).

Cervantes’ choice for the peasant’s name is simply brilliant. Let’s see Gaos annotation on that matter: “Aldonza, Andolza o Na Dolza (…) was a vulgar name, ‘If there is no wench, Aldonza would do’ says an idiom. Aldonza is also the name of “La lozana andaluza” (The lush andaluzian)” (Gaos 67)15. Thus, Cervantes is using the name of a well-known literary prostitute. Later on, even Sancho will say that Aldonza “has much of a courtesan” (Cervantes 312)16.

None of this is important to don Quixote, who has the perfect baseline from which to start working, since Aldonza means “sweet”. In that way he has resolved the question of powerful meaning right there, with little trouble. Thus, Aldonza, Sweet (dulce), becomes Dulcinea. Francisco Rico finds that “the ending with –ea found in literary

14 “antes y primero de todos los rocines del mundo” (Cervantes 76). 15 “Aldonza, Andolza o Na Dolza [. . .] era nombre vulgar ‘A falta de moza, buena es Aldonza’ reza un proverbio. Aldonza era también el nombre de La lozana andaluza“ (Gaos, 67). 16 “Tiene mucho de cortesana” (Cervantes 312). Herraiz 8 heroine (‘s names) as prestigious as Melibea and Cariclea has an outlandish or ‘unusual, exquisite’ taste” (48, nº 76)17.” In addition to this, both Rodriguez Marín and Gaos quote

Menéndez Pelayo on the possible origin of the name in the work “The Ten Books of

Fortune in Love” (Los diez libros de fortuna de amor), by Antonio de Lofraso, in which appear two bucolic shepherds called Dulcinea and Dulcina. It is clear, then, that Dulcinea is a more sophisticated, more literary combination, in addition to being more harmonic to the ear than the sharp term Aldonza. It can be said that in this instance, don Quixote’s choice in names is a happy one.

Let’s see now the most important name of all, the name that replaces the hidalgo and creates a universal character: don Quixote. A name so deeply established that even the priest and the barber, even though they have known Alonso for years, call him

Quixote henceforth.

Before analyzing the word, it is necessary to turn our attention to the honorific particle “don”, because Alonso Quijano, the hidalgo, didn’t have the right to use it.

Martín de Riquer (104, nº 29) points out that it is a treatment reserved to the highest social categories, and a term that eluded all his life. Francisco Rico

(46) explains, however, how the term “don” was commonly used in chivalry books besides being “befitting of the knight/gentleman social class during don Quixote’s time”18. It can be assumed, then, that don Quixote was acting in a rather innocent way when acquiring the “don”, simply as another condition to become an knight errant rather than as a pretension to climb a social rank.

17 “la terminación –ea presente en los (nombres) de heroínas literarias tan prestigiosas como Melibea y Cariclea, tenía un regusto peregrino o ‘inusitado, exquisito’ (Rico 48, nº 76).” 18 “propio de la clase social de los caballeros en la época de Don Quijote.” (Rico 46) Herraiz 9

Nevertheless, the public understood very well the inside joke in taking a term that didn’t belong to him. As an example of the importance and exclusivity of this word, we can see how in the first volume of don Quixote very few characters have the right to use it: don Fernando, the second son of a Duke; don Juan Pérez de Viedma, a powerful

“oidor” (a title equivalent to judge) destined to America and don Luis, who is said to be an owner of places, that is, a rich landowner. Not even Cardenio, despite being a very rich gentleman deserves this honorific treatment, neither does Luscinda, a lady with a high lineage. Furthermore, in the second volume, Teresa Panza exclaims, as many of the neighbors must have wondered, “I really do not know who gave him the don, that neither his parents nor his grandparents had” (Cervantes II 77)19.

Let’s see the word “quixote”. Of the three conditions, the strangeness is certainly well achieved. It is an outlandish word an as unique as the man associated with it. As for the beauty and powerful meaning, on the other hand, the hidalgo was less skillful, that is,

Cervantes was very skilled.

The meaning of “quijote” is derived, with almost all certainty, from the french cuisse o cuissot as pointed by Gaos (64) and Clemencín (23). This word means “tights” and by extension, the part of the armor that covers and protect it. Without a doubt don

Quixote thought that taking a piece related to the knight work as a name would be most suitable. But truth is that from all the eligible pieces, he didn’t choose one of the more elegant ones. Let’s compare it with the breastplate or cuirass (coraza), the armband

(brazales) and the helmet (yelmo). They all protect important body parts, head, heart and arm, while the cuissot… with no offense to the legs, tights aren’t particularly heroic.

19 “Yo no sé, por cierto, quién le puso a él don, que no tuvieron sus padres ni sus agüelos (Cervantes II 77).” Herraiz 10

Besides, it is a defensive piece and not an offensive one, with an inherent passive character. Comparing it with Lancelot, lance (spear), the cuissot has ridiculous overtones.

Still with Lancelot (Lanzarote in spanish), Gaos (64) and Salvador de Madariaga

(62) both see in this word the inspiration for Quixote. Madariaga reconstructs Cervantes’ creative path in this way: “Spanish parody of the knight errant -Lanzarote- Don …ote – word finished in –ote? Quijote.”20 Why Lancelot and not Amadís, Orlando or Galaor?

Clemencín suggest that Cervantes “gave preference to the –ote ending that in spanish is applied to ridiculous and negligible things such as librote, monigote, mazacote” (24)2122.

There are many more examples, all with a negative and pejorative value: “amigote”

(crony) “capote” (old cloak), “gañote” (gullet), “islote” (tiny island) “capirote” (tall hood), etc.

Thus, not only “Quixote” doesn’t have a powerful meaning, but the word doesn’t evoke the famous knight of the lake and instead is associated with ridiculous and worthless things. Poor Alonso Quijano! And poor don Quijote! To round off his work, the hidalgo wanted to have a glorious appellative, opting for “de la Mancha”. Riquer, with much acuity, calls this “the first cervantine slap to chivalry books” (98)23. Gaos expounds more on this nickname:

The name of this humble and poor region contrasts with the resounding and

prestigious Gaula, Greece, Arcadia, Calidonia, in the same way that the ridiculous

20 “parodia española de caballero andante – Lanzarote - Don … ote - ¿palabra en ote? – quixote.” (Madariaga 62) 21 “dio la preferencia a la terminación en ote, que en castellano se aplica ordinariamente a cosas ridículas y despreciables, como librote, monigote, mazacote” (Clemencín 24) 22 “Big old book, rag doll, big block” 23 “el primer palmetazo cervantino a los libros de caballerías” (Riquer 98) Herraiz 11

Quixote does with Amadís. La Mancha (¿ár: ma’ancha: `without water´, `dry´?),

with her aridness also contrast with the exuberant geography of chivalry books.

(65)24

In conclusion, the names on chivalry books gathered three conditions: aesthetic, singularity and a meaning agreeable to the individual. Aware of this, Cervantes follows the same pattern to name his most chivalric characters; but he does it through don

Quixote and the result is logically deformed. Rocinante may be resounding and peculiar, but it is a very bad meaning; don Quixote is unique, but it is also ludicrous and vulgar;

Dulcinea has a good meaning and a nice ring, it even may be singular, but it is still funny when contrasted to the person to which it is applied, the courtesan turned into a lady.

24 El nombre de esta humilde y pobre región contrasta tanto con los altisonantes o prestigiosos de Gaula, Grecia, Arcadia, Calidonia, como el ridículo Quijote con Amadís. La Mancha (¿ár: ma’ancha: `sin agua´, `seca´?), en su aridez contrasta también con la exuberante geografía de los libros de caballerías. (Gaos 65)

Herraiz 12

Works Cited

Cervantes, Miguel de. Don Quijote de la Mancha. Ed. de Luis Andrés Murillo. 1ª ed. 2

tomos. Madrid: Clásicos Castalia, 2010.

Clemencín, Diego, ed.. El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha. Por Miguel de

Cervantes. 1833-39 (6 tomos). Madrid: Librería de la Viuda de Hernando y C.ª,

1894.

Gaos, Vicente, ed. El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha. Por Miguel de

Cervantes (3 tomos, se utiliza sólo el primero). Madrid: Editorial Gredos, 1987.

Madariaga, Salvador de, ed. Don Quijote de la Mancha. Por Miguel de Cervantes.

Buenos Aires: Editorial Sudamericana, 1962.

Rico, Francisco y Forradillas, Joaquín, eds. Don Quijote de la Mancha. Por Miguel de

Cervantes. (2 tomos) Barcelona: Galaxia Gutenberg y Círculo de lectores, 2005.

Riquér, Martín de, ed. Don Quijote de la Mancha. Por Miguel de Cervantes. Barcelona:

Editorial Planeta, 1994.

Rodríguez Marín, Francisco, ed. Don Quijote de la Mancha. Por Miguel de Cervantes.

(10 tomos). Madrid: Ediciones Atlas, 1947-1949.