This is the one edition of the novel I have not seen. I am pleased to recognize the generous cooperation and assistance of Dian Fox of Columbia University who examined the copy in the Rare Book room of the University library for me.

Some of the Oliveros engravings are quite clearly based on those of the 1842 Mexican edition (see the end of section III of this essay). Givanel states that the 1842 Mexican illustrations «no pueden recomendarse en manera alguna, ya que parecen ser obra de un principiante» (2, 345). Based on the reproductions of some examples of the 1842 edition that I have seen, and in the opinion of Fox who has compared them all, Givanel's comment applies more readily to Oliveros' work. It is quite possible that the 1845 Mellado edition was a hurried job in imitation of the higher quality (and perhaps successful, at least in the Madrid publisher's estimation) 1842 edition, and was released in order to help promote sales of a re-issue of Mellado' s two-volume Don Quijote of the previous year.

There is no date on the title page, but the date of 1851 assigned by the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris has been generally accepted: see Givanel (2, 417). I have not seen this translation.

«Cervantes. Artículo crítico», p. [2]. Ford and Lansing at first mistakenly attribute this essay, which they obviously did not see, to Delgado (p. 123), and then later label and attribute it correctly (p. 175).

A minor exception is the short, negative comment by the bibliographer Givanel (2, 5). I have not seen Manuel Zubieta's newspaper article entitled «Don Quijote y sus deformadores», partially on the Adiciones, published in 1947, that is cited by Valle and Romero (p. 281). Aguirre, who relies on previous bibliographies (especially that of Rius), cites the Adiciones, together with several of the related works listed below, and provides a brief plot summary, but makes no critical comment (pp. 142-43). The same sort of brief, non-critical mention of the Adiciones and some other works is found in García Soriano and García Morales' very useful section on Spanish imitations of Don Quijote (pp. 90-91). Murillo does not cite the Adiciones in his recent Bibliografía fundamental of Don Quijote; he lists only Pedro Gatell's Moral de Don Quijote (see below) in the section on eighteenth-century criticism (p. 55), and no work treated in this essay in his brief section on the influence of Cervantes' novel on eighteenth-century Spanish writers (pp. 94-95).

In the second volume of Grismer's bibliography, the Libros and the Moral del mas famoso are listed only under Cide Hamete Benengeli, with no attribution to Delgado or anyone else (2, 73).

According to the NUC the only copy of the supposed 1790 edition is located at the Harvard university library. Staff sources at that library, however, inform me via the interlibrary loan process that there is no edition of the novel with that date at Harvard.

The citation of a 1714 edition by Barbier (p. 583) and Palau (2nd ed.: 3, 425) is erroneous, probably based on a transposition of the last two numbers of the second edition.

Asensio' s essay, first published in 1873, was the first to call attention to the Suite nouvelle. It is particularly valuable for its translation of the highly original and interesting prologue to the novel (see note 47), summary of the new adventures of the knight and squire in vols. 1-5, and index of the titles of the eighteen chapters that make up the story of Sancho in vol. 6.

It is highly probable that «Eugenio Habela Patiño» is in fact Centeno. The attribution was made first by Palau (2nd ed.: 3, 376, and 6, 503), and accepted by Rogers and Lapuente (p. 200), and Aguilar Piñal, Bibliografía (p. 368). This attribution is thoroughly consistent with the type of literary disguise we have seen throughout this essay, and I see no reason to question it. The unusual pseudonym has caused problems in posterity: Palau once writes «Habele y Patiño» (2nd ed.: 6, 503), while García Soriano and García Morales deform it twice -«Hatela Patillo» (p. 91) and «Isabela Patiño» (p. 156).