1 Descendit ad inferna. Don Quixote's Descent into

Hell and the Name-of-the-Father

A. Robert Lauer The University olOklahoma

Although much has been written about the Cave of Montesinos, it is surprising how erities have named chapters 22-23 of the Second part of El ingenioso caballero don Quixote de la Mancha (Madrid: Juan de la Cuesta, 1615). Sinee at least 1885 to 2003, the following terms have been used: a dream (Clemencín [qtd. by Hamilton 10], Johnson 162, Sullivan 126, Dematte 132), a vision (Boyer 376), a dream-vision (Forcione 138, Wilson 70), an allegory of Counter-Reformation Spain (Sieburth 7), an experience (Fucilla 170, Sieber 269), an adventure (Fry 468, Dunn, "Cueva" 190), a concoction (Hamilton 7), an episode (Durán 210, Percas de Ponsetti 142, El Saffar 451), a mystic image (Percas de Ponsetti 149, Juliá 277), a burlesque (Barto 401, Hollander 756), a literary parody (Avalle-Arce 221, Gracia Núñez 2), an event (Hughes 107), an initiation or regresus ad uterum (Redondo 750, 752), a symbolíc death (Redondo 755), a metamorphosis (Sieburth 3, Riley 111), a descent into the unconseious (Petreman 47, Freeman 95), a deseent in life unto Hell (Marasso 110), a fantastic adventure (Maestro 442), a purgatory without exit (Canavaggío 172), an Erasmian parody (Egido 317), and the dream of a madman suffering from monomanía and paranoid psyehosis (Sullivan 114, Johnson 57). In addition, at least one eritie has tried to make a distinction between the allegedly chronological time that informs the novel (chronos,

A. Roben Úluer

temps), and the supposedly literary time that elapses in the Cave

(kairos, durée, aevum) (Sieber 271-72].

Although the aforementioned asseveratíons are indeed suggestive, 1 should like to ascertain fírst what 1 think the Cave of

Montesinos is not; subsequently, 1 should like to propose what 1

believe it is. Firstly, it cannot be an adventure, for it occurs inside a

dark cave while the protagonist i~ tied up and with his eyes closed.

Secondly, it cannot be a concoction, for then he would not ask a

monkey or an enchanted head whether what elapsed in the cave

was real or not. A purgatory without an exít is a contradictíon in

terms. It cannot be an initiation, for the eharaeter does not seem to

be conscíous while he is underground. Neither could it be a

metamorphosis, for no one noticeably changes form or is rebom before, during, or after the cave. Finally, it is not a parody, whether literary or moral, as many eritics have ascertained, since the sole

narrator of what transpires in the Cave of Montesinos is Don Quixote himself and not a supemarrator or "ubiquitous editorial voiee" which organizes all other voiees in the text (Parr 15, qtd. by Freeman 99). Why would the character narrator Don Quixote make

a parody of something that troubles him so much that he would seek counsel even from animal or inanimate objects?

What transpires in the Cave of Montesinos is a

manifestatíon at the Imaginary level of cognition. l Henee, it is real

1 In a striet Lacanian sense, the 1) Imaginary stand s for the diseourse of the [pre-verbal] [m]Other (Lacan 172, 215) as well as psychotic madness (215); while the Symbolie refers to the post-verbal period when language dominates the Imaginary eognitive level. In order not to sueeumb to madness, the speaking subject (man or woman) must internalize fear, or what Lacan ealls the Name of the Father, the Law (of prohibition against ineest) [66, 311] whieh the Father represents. The Real is better defined by Laeanian psychoanalyst Ragland-Sullivan, who defines it as the world of objects and expressions (131), the

108

Deseent into Hell and ¡he

(Don Quixote did not lie or concoct a story). It also has the

potential of being understood, for there is both an oral record

provided by the sole commentator of the manifestation, and a

written one, courtesy the surrogate narrator Cide Hamete

Benengeli. Whether the latter would deem the record apocryphal or

believe that the narrator retracted his story before dying is. of

course, of no consequence. A narrator, even a surrogate or

fictitious one, has a right to express an opinion or a doubt. What is

perhaps disingenuous on his part is to address the prudent reader

and ask him lO judge as he sees fit (2.24). The reader, of course,

whether prudent or not, has done precisely that, from at least 1885

to the present and ongoing moment. Hence, he either accepts the

apocryphal nature of the narration (in which case, why read it?), or

falls into the demonic temptation of judging it as he sees fit,

substituting Don Quixote's text for another: an allegory, an

adventure, an episode, an event, a dream, an experience, a mystic

image, a parody, a descent into the unconscious, an initiation, a

symbolic death, a purgatory, a hallucination, a psychosis, a regresus ad uterum, and even a descenso ad infernum.

As a reader of Don Quixote, 1 am willing to accept the manifestatíon of what transpires in the Cave of Montesinos not as a

leap of faith but because it exists as a written text. After aH, even Cide Hamete Benengeli, the surrogate narrator, was unwilling to delete the protagonist' s oral commentary of the manifestatíon. And

the supemarrator, whose existence was deduced by James Parr in

his attempt to try to understand the muItíple narrative "voices"

within the megatext called Don Quixote, remains silent on the íssue.

To be quite blunt, the manifestatíon of what transpires in the Cave

"battleground" where the Imaginary and the Symbolic realms interact and fight for control (ef. Wright 110).

109

A. Roben Lauer

of Montesinos exists because it was put into words first by Don Quixote (whether the character exists on its own or is the product of someone else's imaginatíon is not our concem here) - and later - because it was put in writing by a secondary agent (whether by a surrogate or even a fictional narrator, a supemarrator, or even an existential being like Cervantes). Now, since the only entity that stands by this story is the character named Don Quixote, it stands to reason that the reader (thrice removed from the alleged manifestation that took place in the Cave of Montesinos) will try to understand it (assurning there is something that eludes meaning) on his terms alone. To do so, one needs to inspect the text, backward and forward, to notice anything that might have triggered Don Quixote's narratíon, as well as any subsequent actions that would necessaríly follow from the narration. Needless to say, consequences that íüllow from the sote narrator's (Imaginary) narration would prove its validity and authenticity, in the same way that in linguistic theory, an action that follows a validly uttered speech act proves the latter's existence unequivocally. For instance, a priest's utterance: "1 now declare you man and wife," on account of its perlocutionary effect on the man and woman who hear those words, proves unequivocally the veracity of the statement.

1 have mentioned already that 1 have no doubts about the

manifestation that transpired in the Cave of Montesinos, for it was

toId by Don Quixote, transcribed by Cide Hamete Benengeli, and

retained without cornment by an implied supemarrator. Moreover,

on account of the oneiric qualities of the narration, 1 as sume that

the Imaginary - ínstead of the Symbolíe level of eognition is at

play here. 1 must also assume that prudent individual s like Don

Quixote or his ereator would be dubíous about the prophetie

aspeets of oneiric interpretation in seventeenth-century Spain.

110

Descendít ad f)escent into Hell ami the

After aH, even Montesinos in this narration is uncertain whether

Don Quixote would be successful in liberatíng (disenchanting) the

entourage found within the palace of the Cave. Subsequently,

neither a divining ape (2.25) nor an enchanted head (2.62) are

willing to risk their reputation by speaking frankly to their

dubitable interlocutor. One might recall, also, that the only

divination properly assigned to oneiric manifestations would have

to derive from God, in which case, He would be the sol e agent

responsible for the oneiric manifestation.

It might be appropriate to remember that for Aristotle,

oneinc visions are an activity of sense-perception (Anstotle 619-

20). Curiously, Sigmund Freud, in his Interpretation of Dreams,

would concur with this opinion by stating that the sources of

dreams are recent and significant events (Freud 249). Moreover, a

cursory reading of Artemidorus's Oneirocritica, a book well

known in the Baroque penod (cf. Wilson 61), demonstrates that

those experiencing an oneiric manifestatíon ínterpret their dreams

as they pertain to themselves. In this way. Artemidorus would

concur with Freud in believing that dreams, beíng our own creatíon,

are absolutely egotistic (Fodor 35). Our dreams al so ret1ect our

culture and our circumstances (cf. Artemidorus 31;1.8). Hence,

physical survival is paramount in the dreams of the Greeks of

Artemidorus's time, in the same way that sexual cathexis is

predominant in the well-to-do Viennese women in Freud's late

nineteenth-century Austria. If this stands to reason, it would foIlow

that a character endowed by Cervantes with verisimilitude would

dream in a way that reflected his psyche, his preferences, and his

culture.

III

A. Roben Lauer

Likewise, since the language of the Imaginary differs fmm

the Symbolic realm, it would only be appropriate to use the

methods of the former to infer meaning from Don Quixote's

oneiric manifestation in the Cave of Montesinos.

The dream text proper, or the manífest content of Don Quixote' s dream will forever remain foreclosed, for whatever that

manifest content might have be en in chapter 22, it was never made

known to us, the readers. It is only in chapter 23, after Don

Quixote has awakened fully and eaten, that he narrates to the Scholar Cousin and Sancho Panza the latent content of his dream.

In other words, the non-existing manifest content of the dream is

made known to them and us, the readers, by means of Symbolic

language, which, as one knows, is unable to fully manifest what

the lmaginary presents. It is only this latent content that Don Quixote can describe and others try to understand.

The Traumarbeit or dream-work proper presents its content through four mechanisms: Verdíchtung (condensation), Verschiebung (displacement), Rücksicht aul Darstellarkeit (considerations of representability), and sekundiire Bearbeitung

(secondary revision). Jacques Lacan would later define displacement as a change of name or metonymy (an association by

contiguity), and condensatíon or symbolism as a transfer or

metaphor (an association by similarity) [cf. Laplanche 123]. In

addition, Jean-Bertrand Pontalis noticed that when a dream is

transferred from images to words, something is necessarily lost

(Pontalis 125). Since Pontalis considered the dream's function as

its most important element, he proposed in 1974 an object, a place,

and a message to dreams (Pontalis 126). Hence, as an object, a

dream is related to nostalgia and self-reflection; as a place, a dream,

always a displaced maternal body for Pontalís, displays a screen

112

Descendit ad De5cent into Hell and the

akin to a private theater wherein the subject is displaced without ever having to remain in a fixed point. This allows the dreamer to

become a spectator of himself or his other roles in the dream. The final message or end of the dream process is a wish-fulfillment. It

is here that resistance and transference take place (Pontalis 131).

Using the methodology suggested by Freud, elaborated by

Lacan, and organized by Pontalis, I should like to propose that what triggered the Imaginary manifestation inside the Cave of

Montesinos was Don Quixote's resistance to accept Sancho

Panza's version of the transformed Dulcinea in 2.10. Don Quixote

seems comfortable with transfers (metaphors) and accepting associations by similarity: an inn is a castle, a windmill a giant.

What he seems to find unacceptable are transmutatíons

(metonymies), misnomers, and associations by contiguity over

which he has no control. Dulcinea' s transmutation, which is happening independently of him, is a foreign and unknown process",

especially when he no longer seems to make associations by

similarity, as proven when he arrives at the house, instead of the castle, of the Knight of the Green Overcoat (2.18). If before, Don

Quixote mistook windmills for giants, the resulting consequence pro ved only his mistake, attributed to an evil enchanter. But

transmutations cannot be mistaken, only accepted or rejected, regardless of any enchantment.

Doubts about the permanence of things bring him to retum

to a familiar dream-world of his own creation, surrounded with

subterranean castles and characters from the Romancero tradition.

But again, in this lovely painting there are displacements.

Montesinos has no weapon but a rosary (550;2.23); Durandarte's

arm is similar to Don Quixote's (cf. 551;2.23 and 346;1.43);

Belerma ís compared to Dulcinea (554;2.23). It may seem obvious

113

A. Robert Lauer

that Durandarte is a metonymy for Don Quixote: he is a knight, he has given his heart out to a woman, and his name, a deformation of

Roland' s sword, has a eontiguous relationship to the knight whose ehosen name refers to his euisse or thigh armor. Moreover, Montesinos is also another displaeement for Don Quixote. Montesinos in this manifestation is a seholar, not a warrior.

Montesinos and Durandarte represent indeed the two essential displacements of the knight of La Mancha, who favors arms over letters in his diseourse on sapientia el fortitudo in ehapters 37, 38, and 42 of thc First parto

It is perhaps surprising that the erities have not notieed that

Montesinos's mulberry-colored serge, his green satin collegiate hood, and even his big rosary (550;2.23) find a correlation in Don Quixote's own scarlet mantle, green velvet hat, and the "large

rosary that he always earried with him" in 2.46. Belerma too would seem to be a displaeement for Don Quixote, especially if we notice that she is unappealing (Don Quixote is the Knight of the W oeful Countenance), has a yellow eomplexion (like Don Quixote), and has few and not well placed teeth (like the Knight of La Mancha). The reference to the fact that she has not had her menstruation time in "Many months and even years" (554;2.23) may well retlect on Don Quixote's eorrelative physical ailment, impotence, which would explain his reluetance to engage in any kind of sexual

activity. It is significant that Montesinos privileges by its position

the referent "months" over "ycars," especially when one considers that he and his peers have been in a state of enehantment for more

than 500 years. It is equally significant that no eritic seems to have notieed that if Durandarte fell at the Battle of Roncesvaux at the same time as his master Roland, on 15 August 778, more than 500 years have elapsed when Don Quixote eneounters his literary

friends in the Cave. And yet, by means of a temporal displacement,

114

Deseendít ad Deseent ínto Hell and the

one notices that 500 elapsed years and Don Quixote's 50 spent years share a telling association of contiguity.

The final dísplacement in the Cave occurs with Don Quixote's image of Dulcinea. Dulcinea was never meant to exist,

except as a transcendental signifier immune to change. That notwithstanding, in the Cave, Dulcinea appears not as she would be imagined by the Knight of La Mancha, but as a displaced and needy signified. That he cannot provide her with the six reales she requests of him may inform one of Don Quixote' s inability to please a woman. More disturbing, however, is the vulgarity of the

request, the need for her to offer a collateral, the other damsel' s reminder that Don Quixote owes her that and more to Dulcinea, and the same damsel' s sprínging in the air like a goat upon obtaining the insignificant amount of four reales. If Don Quixote's ideal has not yet died, it certainly is disintegrating. In the Symbolic world to which Don Quixote returns, of course, his signifier Dulcinea will be further signified by the vulgar and sensual

Altisidora, by a youth who passes for Dulcinea (2.36, 2.46), by a cat-like creature (600;2.31), by a hare (822;2.73), and even by a crícket cage (ibid.). It is indeed the ending of an illusion.

The dream message is surprísingly clear, even if disguised by an unconscious censor who in the Imaginary manifestation goes by the name of Merlin. Fifty years have elapsed for the Knight of La Mancha, and unlike the heroes of the Romancero, who have been alive for at least 500 years, Don Quixote will soon cease to

exist (4 months eIapse since his first salIy and his final return home and death). Whether he remains in a familiar Imaginary world or returns to sanity in the Symbolic world of the Name of the Father,

Don Quixote has become aware that nothing is permanent. Even

his heroes are bound to salt their removed hearts so that they do not

115

A Robert Laller

smell of decay, or be reminded of the fact that their menstrual

cycle has ended a long time ago. If nothing is permanent, then

everything passes, rots, and dies, even the image 01' Dulcinea.

Subsequently, the man Don Quixote will die too, whether or not he

succeeds or 1'ails in his quests. Montesinos's final advise to Don

Quixote not to 1'ollow the village woman passing for Dulcinea, "as

it would be useless, particularly as the time was drawing near when

I would have to leave the cavem" (556;2.23) could not be clearer.

In other words, wake up to reality, 1'orget this Imaginary nonsense,

intemalize the Name 01' the Father, grow up, accept change and

mortality, mend your ways, and offer yoursel1' to God, the only

transcendental signi1'ier 01' permanence.

The lesson taught by the lmaginary does have an e1'1'ect at

the Symbolic level in the case 01' Don Quixote. Deep down, in Hell,

as it were, he wished and needed to heed this lesson. A1'ter aH, when heroes descend into Hades, like Odysseus, Aeneas, or Christ, their initial task is to properly bury the dead, in the first two cases,

or to liberate them, in the third instance: in other words, to show empathy and, hencc, genital maturity (Ragland-Sullivan 185).

When Don Quixote emerges from the cave, he caHs his mani1'estatíon in the Imaginary realm a sweet and delight1'ul

spectacle, in spite 01' the horrors he envisioned. As he states: "Now

indeed 1 know that all the pleasures 01' this ti1'e pass away like a

shadow and a dream, or 1'ade like the flower of the field."

(549;2.22). When Don Quixote subsequently mentÍons "O ill-1'ated

Montesinos! O sore-wounded Durandarte! O unhappy Belerma! O

tear1'ul Guadiana, and you O hapless daughters 01' Ruidera who

show in your waves the tears that flowed from your beauteous

eyes!" (ibid.), Don Quixote is in ef1'ect saying adieu to the

Imaginary real m and the com1'ort 01' his fantasy world. Even the

interjection he utters ("O"), as the Diccionario de Autoridades

116

Descendít ad Deseen! ínto Hell and

infonns us, serves to show pain or compassion (Real 3: 1). In effect, by returning to the Symbolic realm, he leaves behind those displaced transmutations in order to begin unifying his psyche.

Don Quixote's final battle takes place in the realm of the Real, the site of conflict between the Imaginary and the Symbolic (Wright 110). Don Quixote will experience regressions when he attacks Master Peter's Puppet theater, but also moments of empathy when he tells Sancho to stop whipping himself merely to pie ase him, preferring his real-life friend and companion to the imaginary Dulcinea (816;2.71). Don Quixote also has the good

sense to reject Altisidora's sexual advances in 2.70 and hence not fall into another imaginary trap. His final victory over himself occurs when he finally Íllternalizes the Name of the Father within himself, accepts his limitations, and takes care of his farnily and

others, requesting that aH money left over after his death be used for pious works.

When Sancho proclaims, upon their final return home that the village should "Open your anns and receive also your son Don Quixote, who, if he comes vanquished by the arm of another, comes victorious over himself, which, as he himself has told me, is the greatest victory anyone can desire" (821;2.72), we know for a fact that Don Quixote has left the Imaginary realm of the dead. He has now accepted the Symbolic realm fully and, fearful of God, the ultimate Signifier, he has Íllternalized his name. His death, of course, marks the beginning of his ultimate transcendence.

117

A. Robert Lauer

Notes

Aristotle. De somnis (On Dreams). The Basie Works of Aristotle.

Ed. Richard McKeon. New York: Random House, 1941. 618-25.

Artemidorus. The Interpretation of Dreams. Trans. Robert J. White.

Torrance, CA: Original Books, 1990. Trans. of Oneiroeritiea.

A valle-Arce, Juan Bautista. «Don Quijote, o la vida como obra de

arte». El Quijote de Cervantes. Ed. George Ha1ey. Madrid: Tauros,

1980.204-234.

Barto, Philip Stephan. "The Subterranean Grail Paradise of

Cervantes." PMLA 38 (1923): 400-411.

Boyer, Agustín. «De la Cueva de Montesinos al barco encantado:

Don Quijote y el desmoronamiento del verosímil mítico-literario».

Hispanie Journal13.2 (1992): 375-88.

Canavaggio, lean. «Don Quijote baja a los abismos infernales: La cueva de Montesinos». Ed. Pedro M. Piñero Ramírez.

Deseensus ad inferos: La aventura de ultratumba de los héroes (de Homero a Goethe). Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla, 1995. 155-74.

Cervantes, Miguel de. Don Quixote. Eds. Joseph R. Jones & Kenneth Douglas. New York & London: Norton, 1981.

Dematte, Claudia. «El sueño como ventana semiótica: Don Quijote

en la cueva de Montesinos». Letras de Deusto 31.90 (2001):129-36.

Dunn, Peter N. «La cueva de Montesinos por fuera y por dentro:

Estructura épica, fisonomía». MLN 88.2 (1973): 190-202.

Durán, Manuel. La ambigüedad en el Quijote. Xalapa: Universidad

Veracruzana, 1960.

Egido, Aurora. «Cervantes y las puertas del sueño: Sobre la

tradición erasmista del ultramundo en el episodio de la cueva

118

Descendit ad and the

de Montesinos». Studia in honorem pro! M. de Riquer, l/l.

Barcelona: Quadems Crema, 1988.305-41.

El Saffar, Ruth. "Montesinos' Cave and the Casamiento engañoso

in the Development of Cervantes' Prose Fiction." Kentucky

Romance Quarterly 20 (1973): 451-67.

Fodor, Nandor & Frank Gaynor. Frued. Dictionary of Psychoanalysis. Preface by Theodor Reik. New York: Fawcett

W orld Library, 1966.

Forcione, Alban K. Cervantes, Aristotle, and the Persiles.

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970.

Freeman, Marion F. "The Cave of Montesinos and Camacho's

Wedding: Text and Intertext." Indiana Journal of Hispanic

Literatures 5 (1994): 91-103.

Freud, Sigmund. The Interpretatíon of Dreams. The Baste Writings

of Sigmund Freud. Introduction by Dr. A. A. Brill. New York: Modem Library, 1965. 179-549.

Fry, Gloria M. "Symbolic Action in the Episode of the Cave of

Montesinos from Don Quijote." Hispania 48 (1965): 468-474.

Fucilla, Joseph G. "The Cave of Montesinos." Italica 29.3 (1952): 170-74.

Hamilton, T. Earle. "What Happened in the Cave of Montesinos?"

Zyla, Wolodymyr T.(ed.). Proceedings of the Comparative

Literature Symposium, April 22, 23, & 24, 1968. Intemat. Center

for Arid and Semi-Arid Land Studies, Spec. Rept. 8. Lubbock,

Texas: Interdept. Comm. on Comp. Lit., Texas Tech. Coll., 1968. Vol 1:3-17.

Hollander, Robert. "The Cave of Montesinos and the Key to Dreams." Southern Review 4 (1968): 756-67.

119

A. Roben Lauer

Hughes, Gethin. "The Cave of Montesinos: Don Quixote's

Interpretation and Dulcinea's Disenchantment." Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 54 (1977): 107-13.

Johnson, Carroll B. Madness and Lust. A Psychoanalytical

Approach to Don Quixote. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.

Juliá, Mercedes. «Ficción y realidad en Don Quijote (Los episodios de la cueva de Montesinos y el caballo Clavileño)>>. Asociación de

Cervantistas; Actas del Tercer Coloquio Internacional de la

Asociación de Cervantistas. Cervantina. Barcelona: Anthropos, 1993.275-79.

Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York & London: Norton, 1977.

Laplanche, Jean & Jean-Bertrand Pontalis. The Language of Psychoanalysis. Trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith. New York: Norton,1973.

Maestro, Jesús G. «Lo fantástico y lo maravilloso en la aventura de la cueva de Montesinos». Asociación de Cervantistas. Actas del Tercer Coloquio Internacional de la Asociación de Cervantistas.

Colección Hispanistas: Serie Cervantina de la Asociación de Cervantistas. Alcalá de Henares, 12-16 nov. 1990 (lII-CIAC).

Barcelona: Anthropos, 1993.439-61.

Marasso, Arturo. Cervantes. La invención del Quijote. Buenos

Aires: Biblioteca Nueva, ] 943.

Núñez, María Gracia. «Ilusión y realidad en la cueva de Montesinos del Quijote». Espéculo: Revista de Estudios Literarios

24 (2003): no pago (no pagination). Electronic publication.

120

Descendi! ad Descent into Hell and the

Parr, James A. Don Quixote: An Anatomy of Subversive Discourse.

Newark: Juan de la Cuesta, 1988.

Percas de Ponseti, Helena. «La cueva de Montesinos}}. El Quijote

de Cervantes. Ed. George Haley. Madrid: Taurus, 1980. 142-74.

Petreman, David. «La conexión Coloane/Cervantes: La Cueva de Milodón y la Cueva de Montesinos». Confluencia: Revista

Hispanica de Cultura y Literatura 2.1 (1986): 44-49.

Pontalis, Jean-Bertrand. "Dream as Object." Internatlonal Review

ofPsychoanalysis 1 (1974): 125-33.

Ragland-Sullivan, Ellie. Jacques Lacan and the Philosophy of

Psychoanalysis. Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1987.

Real Academia Española. Diccionario de Autoridades. Vol. 3.

Madrid: Gredos, 1969.

Redondo, Agustín. «El proceso iniciático en el episodio de la cueva de Montesinos del Quijote}}. Criado de Val, Manuel. (ed.). Cervantes: Su obra y su mundo: Actas del I Congreso internacional sobre Cervantes. Patronato "Arcipreste de Hita" Madrid: EDI-6, 1981. 749-760.

Riley, E. C. "Metamorphosis, Myth and Dream in the Cave of Montesinos." Tate, R. B. (ed.). Essays on Narrative Fiction in the

Iberían Peninsula in Honour of Frank Pierce. Oxford: Dolphin, 1982. 105-119.

Sieber, Harry. ''Literary Time in the 'Cueva de Montesinos.'" MLN

86 (1971): 268-73.

Sieburth, Renée. "Metamorphosis: The Key to an Interpretation of Don Quixote's Adventure in the Cave of Montesinos." Revista de

Estudios Hispánicos (US) 15 (1981): 3-16.

121

A. Robert Lauer

Sullivan, Henry'W. Grotesque Purgatory. A Study 01 Cervantes 's Don Quixote, Part l/. University Park, Pennsylvania: The

Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996.

Wilson, Diana de Armas. "Cervantes and the Night Visitors:

Dream Work in the Cave of Montesinos." El Saffar, Ruth Anthony.

(ed.), Diana de Armas Wilson, (ed.). Quixotic Desire:

Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Cervantes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP,

1993. 59-80.

Wright, Elizabeth. Psychoanalytic Criticismo Theory and Practice. London & New York: Methuen, 1985.

122