Talk:Miguel de Cervantes

I don't see Beethoven in the Ludwig Beethoven page.--AN

A page on famous hispanics http://coloquio.com/famosos/alpha.htm Got any others?

i heard he was gay

That is controversial, at best. Because of the uncertainties it does not warrant a prominent place as user Haiduc has in mind. For instance, Haiduc claims that Cervantes was ransomed for 500 escudos (that's Portugese coinage, right? Odd...) because the Algerian bey fancied him. Whereas all other sources including the Encyclopedia Brittanica say that this was because he had letters of recommendations from high-placed people on him when he was captured. The meaning of the words "my beloved" cannot be interpreted as an indication of homosexuality per se. Facts about some gay cardinal should be on a seperate page. Cervantes had to flee to Rome, possibly because of a duel as several sources claim, not because of some 'sinful acts' insinuating homosexuality. Haiduc says there was no offspring but the EB says he had a daughter. Haiduc writes he married her for her money but the EB says her dowry was minimal (it included 'one cock', but let's not make a row about the meaning of that :-). Don Quixote had "no interest whatsoever in women". So what? The man was crazy, right?

If there are doubts about Cervantes' sexuality put them down in a seperate section and don't present them as 100% facts.

The problem with your critique is that you are expressing an opinion, whereas the material I brought in has been obtained from works published by historians through established publishing houses, in English as well as in French. Furthermore you are being inconsistent. Having asked for, and received sources for the info, you persist in removing corroborated information from this article. So I suggest that we come to some consensus on what to keep and what to remove. Where you have conflicting information I will gladly renounce that claim. But where you do not, it should stand. That's how things are done around here, lest I be mistaken. Haiduc 03:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is you who is opinionated. The same article you reference says "he might have been", "there is much to support". There is no certainty proclaimed there so this issue should not be presented in an encyclopedia as a fact. For instance, I could not find any Cervantes biographies on the Internet where there is even a hint of his assumed homosexuality. One could make point by point rebuttals as you seem to ask but it is not worth the effort. Please understand that the point you are trying to make is too controversial at this stage. Why not spend time on cases more deserving of your time such as Leonardo, Oscar Wilde, Alexander the Great or ancient Greece in general?

I think there is a connotational difference between expressing an opinion and being opinionated. The Dynes book you are refering to is not as up-to-date as the French material. But I think your earlier suggestion is appropriate, to put this material, with references, in a separate paragraph, indicating that this is new information that has not gained universal currency. Haiduc 13:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

regarding the "my beloved" phrase referenced in an earlier comment, I want to point out that if this refers to any phrase "Mi querido.." in a Spanish document, that can also be translated as "my dear..." and has no such connotatons of "beloved" (cf. English "my dear sir", etc.)
Where has the sexuality section gone, anyway? Nothing on the page now. glasperlenspiel 21:45, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- I removed the header since it didn't contain anything Gkhan 22:00, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Shakespeare and Cervantes

Any objections to de-bolding the text in this section? Conversely, any reason it was bolded in the first place? Hiberniantears 16:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Cervantes on Hu:

According to a check on hu interwiki to 1616, Cervantes is for consistency to be - on that particular Wikipedia! - the page hu interwiki to Miguel Cervantes, which however like hu interwiki to Miguel de Cervantes does not exist yet either. The hu: / Magyar interwiki when it finally does exist should be to M Cervantes in other words, not M(iguel) _de_ Cervantes. If the anon who's been adding many Magyar interwikis over en:, most of them helpfully, sees this, please note this with (my) sincere thanks. Schissel : bowl listen 12:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Tone of first paragraph

Although I am a huge fan of Cervantes, I find the first paragraph of this article a little unencyclopedic:

which is considered by many to be not only the first modern novel, but also one of the greatest works in Western literature and certainly the greatest of the Spanish language. He is arguably, the Spanish Language equivalent of William Shakespeare.

"the Spanish Language equivalent of William Shakespeare" seems to me to be superfluous.
"one of the greatest works in Western literature and certainly the greatest of the Spanish language" - define and defend, then give sources and avoid opinion.
"the first modern novel" - first you need to define "modern"; what about "one of the first" ?

-- NYArtsnWords 06:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The real identity of Cervantes

Very little is known for sure about Cervantes. He said to have been born in no less than five different places, so no one knows where it was. All encyclopedias say Alcalà de Henares because at mid 20th century, historians decided this agreement (with strong oppositions remaining). One Miguel de Cervantes living in Alcalà de Henares existed, there is no doubt about it, but he was poor and with little education. At the moment of his death he owned only three books. His doughter could not read. However, in year 1590 Cervantes sent a memorandum asking for a high employement in the government (with the rank of governor of a province, or similar), arguing that he wanted to serve his king as his ancestors did. Probably two Miguel de Cervantes existed, but only one of them is the writer.

On the current Article

I just finished reading the article on Cervantes and I have several things to say on it. First of all i'd like to say that I enjoyed it, but there's several critiques to be made on it. To begin with: the diction is much too latinized. I sometimes got the impression I was reading Samuel Johnson or some such writer. The author should consider reducing the amount of latinate words. As for the architecture of syntax: I found it a bit antiquated. It reads more like a 18th century critical essay than a 21st century one. There are also extended sections in which the author talks alot but doesn't say much. He should consider condensing his ideas and doing away with any filler material whatsoever. Another good idea would be to divide the long paragraphs into shorter ones, thus making the essay as a whole more accessible. -- I should hope the author will not take the preceding critique amiss: i've simply tried to throw out some constructive criticism out there.

Erik M. C.