Acceso usuarios
Luis F. Avilés
One of the most celebrated episodes included in Periandro's long narration of his adventures in book two of Cervantes's Persiles y Sigismunda is the moment when the young hero suddenly and without reflection attempts to tame a beautiful, wild horse owned by King Cratilo (chapters 18 and 20). This episode has received the attention of many critics, a significant number of them focusing on literary criticism and Aristotelian verisimilitude as central to its significance. This approach has become quite important since the publication of Alban Forcione's book in 1970, with Julio Baena (1990, 1996) and Isabel Lozano Renieblas (1998, 2002), among others, fruitfully expanding his arguments. Forcione also paid attention to the "remote and illustrious ancestry" of the horse (247), alluding to ancient examples such as Pegasus and connecting it to Clavileño from Don Quijote. Following his example, Ruth El Saffar, Ignacio Arellano and, from the unique perspective of the need to tame an excess in narrative art, Baena (1990), have focused on the horse's domestication as an allegory of self-control.1 Respecting the topic of verisimilitude, other critics analyze the episode as an illustration of the protagonist's character; in particular, several see Periandro as a narrator who tends to exaggerate his own exploits or is an outright liar.2 In my opinion, all critics that have focused on this episode tend to privilege two aspects of the story. On the one hand, some deal with verisimilitude, questionable truth, narrative excess, and lying, follow- ing closely the reaction of Mauricio, one of the characters listening to the story. On the other hand, others read the horse emblematically, symbolically, and even allegorically. The latter depend on the long genealogy of ready-made interpretative topoi, such as the traditional meanings of taming a horse as an illustration of the necessity to control the passions, or the animal's associations with other mythical and literary creatures. In what follows I will illustrate how these important approaches have generated a blind spot in criticism, one that I hope to reveal in order to articulate a more encompassing account of the episode's significance and complexity in Cervantes's work. To do so, I will begin by problematizing some of the most canonical approaches I have already mentioned, identifying what is left out of consideration. Then I will proceed with a close reading of those aspects of the episode excluded from critical attention in order to propose a broader reading.
