"El cervantismo" of Pereda and the esoteric criticism of Don Quixote

Authors

  • Salvador García Castañeda

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55422/bbmp.20

Keywords:

El Cervantismo, Cervantism, José María de Pereda, Quijote, Editions, Criticism, Classic, Esoteric interpretation, Juan Valera, Benjumea

Abstract

This article reviews the different perspectives from which Don Quixote has been treated and written, from its publication until the 20th century, mentioning various renowned authors from Spain. The interpretations, especially romantic, of Cervantes' work in Spain were mainly due to Clemencín's edition and Benjumea's opinions, even leading to the creation of a more philological and a more extra-academic side, which was closer to symbolism and philosophy. José María de Pereda wrote articles on Don Quixote, since he was passionate about the work of Cervantes, and he always did so in a satirical and literary critical style. The one that stands out the most is El cervantismo, where Pereda ridicules the superfluous and ridiculous eagerness for Don Quixote of many scholars and writers. This article mentions other Peredian essays on Cervantes and his eagerness to defend the figure of the one he admired.

Downloads

Publication Facts

Metric
This article
Other articles
Peer reviewers 
0
2.4

Reviewer profiles  N/A

Author statements

Author statements
This article
Other articles
Data availability 
N/A
16%
External funding 
N/A
32%
Competing interests 
N/A
11%
Metric
This journal
Other journals
Articles accepted 
0%
33%
Days to publication 
6034
145

Indexed in

Editor & editorial board
profiles
Academic society 
Sociedad Menéndez Pelayo
Publisher 
Sociedad Menéndez Pelayo

PFL

1 2 3 4 5
Not useful Very useful
  • Citations
  • CrossRef - Citation Indexes: 1

Global Statistics ℹ️

Cumulative totals since publication
164
Views
77
Downloads
241
Total

Published

2005-12-10

How to Cite

García Castañeda, S. (2005). "El cervantismo" of Pereda and the esoteric criticism of Don Quixote. MENÉNDEZ PELAYO LIBRARY BULLETIN, 81(único), 139–206. https://doi.org/10.55422/bbmp.20