Cervantes on Truth and Virtue: Cervantes' Tale of Inappropriate Curiosity Sends a Message Often Misconstrued

It is widely assumed that true beliefs are more valuable to have than false beliefs. Additionally, this assumption holds especially in cases in which the content of our beliefs is not trivial, but of particular significance to us. In Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote, there is an interlude that functions as an apparent counterexample to these assumptions. That to which I am referring is a brief hiatus in the central plot, one in which the priest and the barber, whilst lodging with Quixote and Sancho Panza at the Inn, pause to read aloud a short-story that was kept at the end. The Tale of Inappropriate Curiosity turns out to teach a surprising lesson: that there are some beliefs it is better not to believe truly (or perhaps to know); secondly, if we try to hard to determine that a certain belief is false, we might contribute to its being true. As the story goes, there are two friends, Lotario and Armenio. Armenio marries a beautiful woman, and although he is happy with her, he cannot be completely content until he is convinced that she is perfectly virtuous. Although she has not shown any chinks in her armour, Armenio's intellect has not been satiated. He determines that the only way to really know that her virtue is as pristine as he thinks it is, is to put her to a test of great temptation. To this end, he solicits his best friend, Lotario, to make advances toward her in his absence to see whether she resists. Of course, Armenio instructs Lotario to back away in the event that she does give in, but regardless, to report her behaviour to him, who is so ever curious.

What is the Lesson?

The lesson the tale appears to teach is that Armenio's curiosity is his downfall. It is specifically this trait-usually considered to be a form of intellectual virtue-which constitutes a moral vice, and leads to Armenio's own demise. The plot unfolds, as it were, to find Armenio's wife initially refusing Lotario, but because Armenio continues to pressure Lotario to keep up the tests, the result is that both give in, and both betray Armenio.

This story is interesting from both an epistemic perspective and a moral perspective. Epistemically, it seems to, at least on the surface, suggest that the general desirability of intellectual curiosity as a trait does not range over all particular instances of intellectual curiosity; there are some cases in which curiosity is 'inappropriate.' If this is true, then it seems as though inquiry with regard to what is the case should be avoided in favour of some other, intellectually complacent attitude, at least in some cases.

A different interpretation

I suggest, though, that this is just a superficial way to interpret the message here, and that the Tale of Inappropriate Curiosity, does not condone intellectual laziness. Let us consider that, despite what the title pronounces, what was inappropriate about Armenio was not his curiosity, per se, but his conduct-conduct which did not merely investigate the world as he found it, but which shaped the world into which he was investigating. It is in this respect that we can see why the story is interesting from a moral perspective, over and above its interest from an epistemic perspective. The lesson here is not one about curiosity, it is about conduct. Independent of Armenio's inquisitiveness, he ought not to have acted in such a way to increase the likelihood that his wife would fail the test of virtue. By setting her up to fail, and wondering whether he would, his curiosity (thought not ignoble in itself) when combined with his conduct, propagated a self-fulfilling prophesy, which satisfied his intellect at the expense of compromising his wife's virtue, as well as his own.