IN DOW QUIJOTE PART I, the interpolated tale of "El curioso impertinente" can be read as a prism with which to examine aspects of the stories of the characters who listen to the narration of the unraveling designs of Anselmo, Camila, and Lotario. Even studies of this novella that have focused mostly on an analysis of the work itself generally include remarks as to its "pertinence" to Don Quijote. David Arbesu Fernandez, in his article "Auctoritas y experiencia en 'El curioso impertinente,'" also observes that "En lo que toda la critica del 'Curioso' esta de acuerclo, no obstante, es en que la novela trata de alguna manera sobre el conocimiento de la 'verdad'" (24). Nevertheless, the majority of critical attention dedicated to this novella demonstrates a concern as to whether Anselmo was "right" or "wrong" to test Camila; and since critics will generally say that he was wrong to do so, they often then discuss why he was wrong. As a result, the critical focus of interpretations of the novena shifts to moral rather than epistemological concerns. Even Arbesu Fernandez's thesis as to the "correct" approach to truth and knowledge in the novella is dictated by this interpretive imperative: Anselmo was wrong to test Camila, and hence his method for approaching truth was the wrong one; meanwhile Lotario was corretor in opposing the test of Camila, and hence his method for approaching truth was the right one. (1) In summary, since scholars have made the assumption that to test Camila is "wrong," they have not dedicated intensive analysis as to what is wrong with Anselmo's test as a test in itself. Of course, in order to do so, one must clearly delineate what exactly it is Anselmo's experiment is testing. It has occurred to me that a precise examination of this point has been thus far overlooked by scholars--even Lotario, when he counters Anselmo's arguments in the novella's famous debate, betrays a faulty understanding of the objective of Anselmo's test. Building on the theme of "truth" in "El curioso impertinente," we should also consider Juan Bautista Avalle-Arce's description of an important intellectual preoccupation that is pervasive throughout Cervantes's works: "Cualquier lectura de las obras de Cervantes, por apresurada que sea, evidencia el interes absorbente que tenia para el novelista el tema de la verdad, y las formas del conocimiento para alcanzarla" (17). He later makes note of the three possible cognitive approaches to knowledge or truth: authority, experience, and reason. (2) With this consideration, we may see "El curioso impertinente" and its examination of truth as a prism for examining the methods used to assess present situations and for understanding basic assumptions about the different worldviews that we observe among the characters in Don Quijote. Reading Don Quijote, one may notice how different characters make sense of their world by delegating primary importance to one of three methodologies: (literary) formulas, rational deliberation, or the "indisputable" empirical evidence of the material world. One might think of Don Quijote, the Canon from Toledo, and Sancho Panza as respectively representing, at least to a significant degree, each of these three options. In my analysis of "El curioso impertinente," I will discuss how the novella explores these three methodologies and articulate the potential and the problems implicit in the reliance on each in the pursuit of knowledge and truth." For example, with respect to Anselmo's empiricist leanings, I will analyze how his method works, the assumptions such a method implies, and the various factors that complicate its realization. Readers and critics may casually assume that Anselmo's method is plagued by concerns of distinguishing "appearance from reality" or that we can assume a priori that empirical testing (for one reason or another) does not work with human beings. Yet while these generalizations may be true, the considerations of empiricism and its inheren
