AWEJ for Translation & Literary Studies, Volume 6, Number2. May 2022 Pp. 144-164
The Ideal and the Real in Cervantes’s Don Quixote:
A Hegelian Dialectic Approach
Bechir Saoudi1, Renad Hammad Al-Hammad2, Bdoor Ibrahim Al-Rafiah2,
Alhanouf Saud Al-Tamimi2, Atheer Hamdan Al-Guraini2, Arwa Khaled Al-Shuraym2,
Atheer Fahad Al-Eid2
1English Department, College of Science and Humanities, Hotat Bani Tamim, Prince
Sattam Bin AbdulAziz University, Al-Kharj, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia English
Department, ISEAH, Kef, Jendouba University, Tunisia
Correspondent Author: email@example.com
2English Department, College of Science and Humanities, Hotat Bani Tamim, Prince
Sattam Bin AbdulAziz University, Al-Kharj, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Received:1/29/2022 Accepted: 5/19/2022 Published: 5/24/2022
This research project studies the real and the ideal in Miguel de Cervantes’s Don Quixote from a Hegelian dialectic perspective. Hegel’s framework of thesis, antithesis and synthesis is applicable to the analysis of the opposing themes of idealism and realism in the novel. Three main questions have been dealt with: First, what makes up Don Quixote’s idealism? Second, what are the main components of realism that stand in his way? Third, what is the outcome of the interaction between the ideal and the real? The study has managed to answer its key research questions: First, idealism in the novel is exemplified by Don Quixote who believes in chivalry principles as unquestionably truthful and genuine. Second, realism is mainly represented by Sancho and the characters that are concerned with immediate practical preoccupations and material matters. Third, Quixote’s application of his version of idealism witnesses a transfer towards a concession to the real world that, in turn, makes a significant transference to reconcile with Don Quixote’s ideals. Applying the thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic approach to analyze conflicting themes is a productive exploration of literature.
Keywords: antithesis, Don Quixote, Hegel’s dialectics, ideal, Miguel de Cervantes, real, synthesis, thesis
Cite as: Saoudi,B., Al-Hammad, R.H., Al-Rafiah, B. I., Al-Tamimi, S. S., Al-Guraini, A. H., Al-Shuraym, A. K., & Al-Eid, A. F. (2022). The Ideal and the Real in Cervantes’s Don Quixote: A Hegelian Dialectic Approach. Arab World English Journal for Translation & Literary Studies 6 (2) 144-164.
Allen, J. J. (1979). Don Quixote: Hero or Fool? Part II. Gainesville: University Presses
Aubrun, C. (1986). “The Reason of Don Quixote’s Unreason” (L. K. Wornom & E.
Lampera, Trans.). Critical Essays on Cervantes. Boston: G. K. Hall.
Bloom, H. (2003). The Knight in the Mirror. The Guardian, December 13, 2003.
Bloom, H. (2009). Cervantes’s Don Quixote. NY: Infobase Publishing.
Close, A. (2010). The Romantic Approach to Don Quixote: A Critical History of the
Romantic Tradition in Quixote Criticism. Cambridge University Press.
de Cervantes, M. (2009). Don Quixote (J. H. Montgomery, Trans.).
Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published
Friedman, E. H. (1998). Readers Digest: The Critical Frames of “Don Quixote.”
Confluencia, 14(1), 3–11. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27922646)
Hatzfeld, H. A. (1947). “Thirty Years of Cervantes Criticism”, JSTOR, 11, 3:
Jensen, M. H. (2015). 400 Years of Nonsense About Don Quixote. Retrieved from
Miguel de Cervantes. (2021). In Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved from
Molina, A. M. (2015). Don Quixote or the Art of Becoming. The Hudson Review.
Parr, J. A. (2005). Don Quixote: A Touchstone for Literary Criticism. Kassel:
Revolutions in Opposites. (2017). managementmattersnetwork.com. Retrieved from
Schnitker S.A. & Emmons R.A. (2013) Hegel’s Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis Model.
In: Runehov A.L.C., Oviedo L. (eds) Encyclopedia of Sciences and Religions.
Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8265-8_200183
Stavans, I. (2015). Quixote: The Novel and the World. W. W. Norton & Company.
Stephen, B. (Ed.). (2019). The Art of Cervantes in Don Quixote: Critical Essays.
Wardropper, B. W. (1965). “Don Quixote: Story or History?” Modern Philology 63: 1–
- University of Chicago Press.