Selecciona una palabra y presiona la tecla d para obtener su definición.


ArribaAbajo Leandra and That Nagging Question

Robert L. Hathaway

Colgate University

El cuasi-cabrero Eugenio narra la supuesta tragedia de su amor por Leandra, la bella aldeana que se huyó con Vicente de la Rosa, el seudo-heroico soldado de los vistosos paños quien la había convencido a acompañarle en un viaje a Nápoles, en aquel entonces el renombrado centro de la dolce vita. Una vez idos del pueblo el falso la dejó en camisa en una cueva, llevando consigo todas las joyas de la decepcionada pero dejando intacta la que vale más que ninguna otra... pues, según lo que dijo ella.
¿Verdad o mentira? La cuestión queda palpitante todavía. Nos acercamos detalladamente a este cuento intercalado de la primera parte del Quijote, separando los hilos del confuso tejido cervantino para tratar de descubrir claramente, una vez para siempre, si rindióse Leandra, o no se rindió.

Don Quijote has been enchanted and is headed homeward in an ox cart. He is accompanied by two clerics -the canon of Toledo and the parish priest Pero Pérez- and two lugareños -Sancho Panza and the village barber Maese Nicolás-, for all of whom he believes he has proven the worth of the libros de caballerías by his impromptu creation of a minilibro, the tale of that courageously adventuresome Caballero del Lago. Supping on provisions brought from the Canon's mule train, these five men and assorted servants «a deshora oyeron un recio estruendo y un son de esquila, que por entre unas zarzas y espesas matas que allí junto sonaba, y al mesmo instante vieron salir de entre aquellas malezas una hermosa cabra, toda la piel manchada de negro, blanco y pardo. Tras ella venía un cabrero dándole voces, y diciéndole palabras a su uso, para que se detuviese, o al rebaño volviese». (I, 50)27 Thus begins the brief intercalated tale of the newly-become pastores Eugenio and Anselmo, and of the beautiful aldeana Leandra and the fanfarrón Vicente de la Roca who carried her off, leaving scores of suitors grieving for the love now denied them.


Clemencín stated that the sole apparent reason for its inclusion is structural: «El cuento del pastor Eugenio no tuvo al parecer otro objeto que preparar la escena de los mogicones de Don Quijote, y su batalla con los disciplinantes que se refieren en el capítulo LII, y reanimar de esta suerte la relación del viaje, que entorpecida con los diálogos y discursos que preceden, había perdido la rapidez y movimiento que le convenía al concluirse» (1489a, n. 35 to I, 50). This may well be, but another structure cannot be overlooked, that of the seven intercalated stories within Part One, the symmetrical placement and interconnections of which have been explored by Immerwahr28. I hope to show that the pattern of this last of the seven bears its strongest relationships to the first with the devotees of Marcela, and the third with Dorotea's autobiography; I shall then address myself to That Nagging Question perennially on every reader's mind when Leandra's name is mentioned: did she or didn't she29?

* * *

The herdsman catches the goat which had come to the group of diners and he speaks to her «como si fuera capaz de discurso y entendimiento» (I, 50). He knows he is being overheard but speaks «a su uso», to his own circumstance, as it were, seemingly oblivious to the fact (seemingly...) that his words will provoke a request for explanation. So curious is it all that Don Quijote prompts clarification because, he says, «'tiene este caso un no sé qué de sombra de aventura de caballería'» (I, 50); he thus leads the way to the following chapter fifty-one which is devoted entirely to Eugenio's cuento (much   —60→   as chapter twenty-eight is to Dorotea's)30. In chapter fifty-two we come to the raucously comic denouement, the rough-and-tumble fight between Eugenio and Don Quijote who had been freed to attend to his personal hygiene and to eat, the same fight Clemencín cited as the principal reason for this narrated interruption.

The presentation therefore is composed of three parts: 1) a personal declaration which whets curiosity and begs explanation; 2) a narrative of a past event; and 3) an ending which brings one back to «the present31». Following the hints given above, the reader may have already found a link to Dorotea, for her tale is presented in similar fashion: 1) words spoken in desperation, believing herself alone, but which pique the curiosity of the hidden listeners; 2) the explicatory narrative which gives some cause for doubt: is each woman involved as innocent as she depicts herself (Dorotea) or is depicted (Leandra)?; and 3) the return to the «present», Dorotea's plea for advice a segue which functions in the same manner as Don Quijote's offer to liberate Leandra. Of course Eugenio speaks in company but he appears to be ignoring it, and in exasperation instead, a strong emotion though not as devastating as Dorotea's desperation. The instances in phase three are neither parallel nor similar except as the structural bridge to the «history» itself; the two variations do not, however, invalidate the strong comparisons.

When Dorotea reveals her true sex, first by referring to herself as desdichada, then by revealing her feet and hair, the three men listening and looking -Pero Pérez, Cardenio, Maese Nicolás- wonder and marvel32. It is the priest who voices their curiosity: «Lo que vuestro traje, señora, nos niega, vuestros cabellos nos descubren: señales claras que no deben de ser de poco momento las causas que han disfrazado vuestra belleza en hábito tan indigno, y traídola a tanta soledad como es ésta» (I, 28). No such altering disguise is initially obvious for Eugenio; he is identified as a cabrero because of his dress and actions. A disclaimer of sorts follows when he announces «Rústico soy; pero no tanto que no entienda cómo se ha de tratar con los hombres y con las bestias» (I, 50). Only later, in his tale, does   —61→   he fully reveal that the goatherd's guise is adopted: he has remade his life in imitation of literature like so many characters in the Quiijote33.

Eugenio's initial words must be examined closely:

«¡Ah, cerrera, cerrera, Manchada, Manchada, y cómo andáis vos estos días de pie cojo! ¿Qué lobos os espantan, hija? ¿No me diréis qué es esto, hermosa? Mas ¡qué puede ser sino que sois hembra y no podéis estar sosegada; que mal haya vuestra condición, y la de todas aquellas a quien imitáis! Volved, volved, amiga; que si no tan contenta, a lo menos, estaréis más segura en vuestro aprisco, o con vuestras compañeras; que si vos que las habéis de guardar y encaminar andáis tan sin guía y tan descaminada, ¿en qué podrán parar ellas?»

(I, 50)                

The canon comments that the goat, because she is female, «ha de seguir su natural distinto» or instinto (I, 50), a remark which for the moment appears to exist solely as a criticism of the sex in general for its flightiness34.


But once the reader has heard Eugenio's tale and has learned that the only woman involved, the beautiful object of the adoration of Eugenio, Anselmo, and myriad others, was carried off by the braggart soldier Vicente, he of the Joseph's-coat wardrobe, on subsequent reflection the texts here cited acquire wider meaning. As we approach our Question we must recall how Leandra became so taken with Vicente: «Enamoróla el oropel de sus vistosos trajes; encantáronla sus romances, que de cada uno que componía daba veinte traslados [comparable to his manner of dress]; llegaron a sus oídos las hazañas que él de sí mismo había referido, y, finalmente, que así el diablo lo debía de tener ordenado, ella se vino a enamorar dél, antes que en él naciese presunción de solicitarla.35» What the Dueña Dolorida says of herself in Part Two could easily be spoken by Leandra by changing only a name: «no me rindieron los versos; sino mi simplicidad; no me ablandaron las músicas, sino mi liviandad; mi mucha ignorancia y mi poco advertimiento abrieron el camino y desembarazaron la senda a los pasos de [Vicente instead of Don Clavijo]» (II, 38). This young woman, so impressed by the superficial and lacking motherly counsel to seek more substance, keeps her sudden infatuation secret from her father (and, naturally, from all the adoring swains) as the two plan their flight. I use the word «flight» meaningfully even though the text nowhere specifically refers to their departure as such: the goat and Leandra are one and the same, the animal in imitation of the woman, each fleeing the fold (flock / family protection) for no good reason but the impulse to seek contentment (expressed elliptically in the phrase «si no tan contenta [...] estaréis más segura36»). Not, as Casalduero states,   —63→   the goat symbolizing all women (198), not «todas aquellas a quien imitáis»: Leandra is the sole point of reference for Eugenio's words and it is she who, given her social standing and beauty, might well have been expected to guardar y encaminar as «una hija de tan estremada hermosura, rara discreción, donaire y virtud», one who might for her excellence -prima inter pares- wear a metaphorical esquila of exemplarity.

As in Dorotea's tale, the initial portion of the text sets a beautiful young woman within a socioeconomic context: wealth and virtues, products of heaven and earth. She is not only loved but even venerated, the one by her parents, «cristianos viejos ranciosos» for whom she was «mayordoma y señora» (I, 28), the other by those enthralled by her beauty, «que como a cosa rara, o como a imagen de milagros, de todas partes a verla venían37». And yet each took as truth the words of her raptor:

DOROTEA.-   [in her own words]: «sobre todo, me comenzaron a hacer fuerza y a inclinarme a lo que fue, sin yo pensarlo, mi [perdición] los juramentos de don Fernando, los testigos que ponía, las lágrimas que derramaba y, finalmente, su disposición y gentileza, que acompañada con tantas muestras de verdadero amor, pudieran rendir a otro tan libre y recatado corazón como el mío».


LEANDRA.-    [according to EUGENIO]: «preguntáronla su desgracia; confesó sin apremio que Vicente de la Rosa la había engañado, y debajo de su palabra de ser su esposo la persuadió que dejase la casa de su padre; que él la llevaría a la más rica y más viciosa ciudad que había en todo el universo mundo, que era Nápoles, y que ella, mal advertida y peor engañada, le había creído [...]».

Riches and pleasures: for one the prospect of social elevation in marriage to a segundón, for the other the lure of Neopolitan flings and fancies.


Did she or didn't she? Dorotea did, equally mal advertida (despite her deliberations and rationalizations) y peor engañada (seduced and quickly abandoned), but she had the wit and the gumption to set out to make things right. And Leandra?:

«la llevó [Vicente] a un áspero monte, y la encerró en aquella cueva donde la habían hallado. Contó también cómo el soldado, sin quitalle su honor, le robó cuanto tenía, y la dejó en aquella cueva, y se fue: suceso que de nuevo puso en admiración a todos

[Duro se nos] hizo de creer la continencia del mozo, pero ella lo afirmó con tantas veras, que fueron parte para que el desconsolado padre se consolase, no haciendo cuenta de las riquezas que le llevaban, pues le habían dejado a su hija con la joya que, si una vez se pierde, no deja esperanza de que jamás se cobre. El mismo día que pareció Leandra la despareció su padre a nuestros ojos, y la llevó a encerrar en un monesterio de una villa que está aquí cerca, esperando que el tiempo gaste alguna parte de la mala opinión en que su hija se puso».

Certainly it is hard to believe the continency; as Héctor Márquez says, «Los mismos pensamientos pasan por la mente del lector» (105). Irony of ironies: we still ponder the Question of her honor centuries later38.

Clemencín was right to comment on that cave:

No se concibe fácilmente cómo se encierra a una persona en una cueva, ni cómo pasó en ella Leandra tres días desnuda en camisa; ni cómo dejó de hacer alguna diligencia para salir de aquel estado de soledad y abandono; ni cómo dejó de pasar el Vicente más adelante, según observó el mismo Eugenio: Difícil, señor, se hizo de creer la continencia del mozo. Palabras que Eugenio dirigió exclusivamente al Canónigo [the señor of the text], prescindiendo de los demás circunstantes, o porque consideró que era la persona más autorizada de su auditorio, o porque, como estómago agradecido,   —65→   se acordaba de los lomos del conejo fiambre y del trago a que sirvieron de agradable cimiento

(1491a, n. 11 on I, 51)                

If one continues looking at Leandra through the lens of Dorotea, one might be inclined to agree that she did. In each case we have a tale being told directly to an ecclesiastic and in each case a best face is being put on the protagonist in an exculpatory mode39. Dorotea must not only explain why she is alone in the wilds and dressed as a man, she must also relate her experience to the priest, the one member of the trio before her who she might well feel promises succor, advice, and comfort, if not immediate forgiveness. Her tale is not a spur-of-the-moment creation but a narrative artfully crafted to play upon men's sympathies, weaving innocence and ignorance into a tapestry which, despite her skill, betrays its artifice and, yes, the cunning by which she seduced Don Fernando -or let herself be seduced. Likewise Eugenio's cuento is not extemporaneous: «El estilo conceptuoso, sutil y alambicado de Eugenio no se ajusta bien con la llaneza y rusticidad del que gastan los de su profesión y oficio» (Clemencín 1489b, n. 3 to I, 51; see also 1492b, n. 16); as Márquez Villanueva puts it, the «mayor afán de este pastor de libro de texto no es sino demostrar ante aquellos forasteros que él no es ningún rústico simple 'que no entienda cómo se ha de tratar con los hombres y con las bestias'» (79, citing from I, 50, as seen above)40. In his own artful manner Eugenio must not only explain why he spoke as he did to a goat, of all things, he must also relate Leandra's experience to the canon, the one member of the group before him who could well heap more opprobrium on the aldeana, hence he will not confirm a reality -that she did- which would put an immediate end to Leandra's honor, yet he is sufficiently «bitter and disconsolate» (Fajardo 1986, 244) to allow a doubt to stand as he takes pains to show the impact of her wishes and her father's. And in the process readers cannot forget -I believe that Cervantes wished us to recall vividly- the thwarted lovers of Marcela:


«'No hay hueco de peña, ni margen de arroyo, ni sombra de árbol que no esté ocupada de algún pastor que sus desventuras a los aires cuente; el eco repite el nombre de Leandra dondequiera que pueda formarse: Leandra resuenan los montes, Leandra murmuran los arroyos, y Leandra nos tiene a todos suspensos y encantados, esperando sin esperanza y temiendo sin saber de qué tememos'41. If Eugenio can be called a «pastor de libro de texto», so also Grisóstomo, and his story really was a tragedy whereas the reader should indeed be skeptical about Eugenio's reference to «esta tragedia42».

If it seems so difficult to believe Vicente's forbearance, why are so many suitors hopelessly hoping and unpurposively fearing? Do they believe and await without hope for the end of her incarceration? Do they fear that she did? Why does Eugenio still fix his passion on Leandra? Is he tepidly defending her honor -which he has clearly placed in doubt- when he says that «los que conocían su discreción y mucho entendimiento, no atribuyeron a ignorancia su pecado, sino a su desenvoltura y a la natural inclinación de las mujeres, que por la mayor parte suele ser desatinada y mal compuesta»? One cannot escape the misogynism of his remarks, such that one may well deduce, as has Márquez Villanueva43, that the whole episode is merely his chosen point of departure for a self-indulgent literary exercise on a time-honored theme and the concomitant pleasurable otium of playing at goatherd.

Does Don Quijote help us to answer the Question? Were he able, he states, he would assist Eugenio, but how does one rightly interpret   —67→   his offer?: «que yo sacara del monesterio (donde, sin duda alguna, debe de estar contra su voluntad) a Leandra, a pesar de la abadesa y de cuantos quisieran estorbarlo, y os la pusiera en vuestras manos, para que hiciérades della a toda vuestra voluntad y talante [at this point one wonders what to infer44], guardando, pero, las leyes de caballería, que mandan que a ninguna doncella se le sea fecho desaguisado alguno» (I, 52) -but this injunction is made moments after specifically calling Eugenio «hermano cabrero». Gentlemanly compañerismo, perhaps, but Don Quijote is projecting courtly or noble gentility into what he mistakenly believes is a chivalrous history.

Can a comparison of Leandra and the cabra shed some light? Márquez Villanueva (91) links Leandra's choice of consort to the possibility expressed by Don Quijote that if a daughter were to choose her husband without parental advice and consent, «tal habría que escogiese al criado de su padre, y tal al que vio pasar por la calle, a su parecer bizarro y entonado, aunque fuese un desbaratado espadachín» (II, 19, emphasis added to the accurate description of Vicente); he goes on to state that «No es otro [...] el sentido del acercamiento simbólico de Leandra a una cabra, animal proverbialmente lujurioso y falto de mollera». The adjective manchada may literally refer to a multicolor-spotted animal, but the association with mancha in its definition of an affront to one's honor cannot be overlooked in an age when the comedias made much of that word so central to the pundonor. Is Dorotea's tale a clue in the sense that a labradora manchada and a Leandra-as-cabra parallel may be accepted in the priest's phrases «Lo que vuestro traje, señora, nos niega, vuestros cabellos [or piel] nos descubren» and «traídola a tanta soledad» ( I, 28, emphases added)?

Flighty Leandra is capricious. Cervantes may or may not have been aware of the etymological link to capra of which Márquez Villanueva reminds us (91, n. 17). As for cerrera, which Riquer explains as «Que gusta de andar por los cerros» (503), Clemencín is more expansive: «Amiga de andar por cerros, de andar vagando por parajes ásperos y escabrosos como son los cerros y barrancos. Aquí está usada esta palabra en sentido recto; Fr. Luis de Granada la usó en   —68→   metafórico, cuando dijo (capítulo XXVIII, de la Escala espiritual): mas si lo dejares (al pensamiento) andar cerrero y suelto por donde quisiere, nunca to podrás tener contigo» (1488a, n. 31 to I, 50) One could claim that Cervantes had this same metaphorical meaning in mind, and that his sly insinuation of the goat as parallel to the sheep which left the Biblical fold is our clue that she did. Even more untenable would be to link cerro and descaminado and introduce ir por los cerros de Ubeda: «se dize del que no lleva camino en lo que dize y procede por términos remotos y desproporcionados» (Covarrubias 411a, emphasis added), intending the last adjective to refer in the present case to the level of social expectations.

Did she or didn't she? Leandra believed that Vicente would marry her, told no one, and went off in secret. Here there is a difference, perhaps significant, as compared to Dorotea who had her conniving maid as witness to Don Fernando's promise to wed, his oath given to be her legitimate husband: «aquí te doy la mano de serlo tuyo, y sean testigos desta verdad los cielos, y a quien ninguna cosa se asconde, y esta imagen de nuestra Señora que aquí tienes» (I, 28). Leandra had no such witness (we must assume) and thus a clandestine betrothal could not be claimed. Such betrothals were forbidden by the Council of Trent which «con su decreto Tametsi (publicaciones de tres amonestaciones, presencia personal del párroco y de dos o tres testigos, etc.), puso fin a las grandes injusticias y tragedias que surgieron del matrimonio clandestino» (Piluso 67)45.

Leandra's father rushes her off to a convent, evidence of a caring and responsible nature which one might expect from a man whom Eugenio has characterized as «un labrador muy honrado, y tanto, que aunque es anexo al ser rico el ser honrado, más lo era por la virtud que tenía que por la riqueza que alcanzaba» . This description is remarkably similar to that which Dorotea provides of her parents who, besides being Old Christians, are «tan ricos, que su riqueza y magnífico trato les va poco a poco adquiriendo el nombre de hidalgos,   —69→   y aun de caballeros» (I, 28), a mark of the esteem accorded them by their peers. Leandra's father clearly had the protection of the family reputation as good and sufficient reason for his precipitous removal of his daughter, but certainly he has done nothing to deserve the harsh criticism of Eugenio and Anselmo: «abominábamos del poco recato del padre de Leandra» . He is, after all, the one who decided that his daughter, too young at present for marriage, should choose her husband-to-be; he effectively eliminated (he thought) all rivals but these two who now so demean him: «nos entretuvo a entrambos con la poca edad de su hija y con palabras generales, que ni le obligaban, ni nos desobligaban tampoco» . The father's reaction provides no clue to answering our Question except as one hypothesizes his real feelings about the mala opinión which, Eugenio tells us, he (the father) hopes will fade in time.

One thorny problem is yet to be confronted. We know that Dorotea self-servingly colored her story with -for one example- the claim that her infrequent spare time was spent reading books of devotion, yet she later states that she knows well how to play Micomicona according to the chivalresque stereotype of a damsel in distress as so often depicted in the libros de caballerías. What about Eugenio? Is it possible that the references to the father's mismanagement of the situation are only an indirect expression of his own bitterness? «Los pocos años de Leandra sirvieron de disculpa de su culpa» seems to intimate forgiveness, but a partial disclaimer follows immediately: «a lo menos con aquellos que no les iba algún interés en que ella fuese mala o buena» , and he makes the poorly veiled reference to himself cited above: «pero los que conocían su discreción y mucho entendimiento no atribuyeron a ignorancia su pecado, sino a su desenvoltura y a la natural inclinación de las mujeres, que, por la mayor parte, suele ser desatinada y mal compuesta» . In a very few lines, then, he has gone from general to partial exculpation and then to her sinfulness as one of her sex; the misogynism could not be made more apparent.

And perhaps Anselmo seemed to Leandra as distasteful a choice for lifelong partner as Eugenio «con el típico narcisismo de la adolescencia» , this «dechado en su opinión» (Márquez Villanueva 79) who raises Leandra to uniqueness in womanly perfection and the extended fame of a Miss Universo. He sounds rather a prig in some ways46, and so very self-satisfied with being a bright light in his dull   —70→   town. No wonder, as Márquez Villanueva puts it, that «Vicente destaca como un pájaro tropical sobre el fondo grisáceo de la vida pueblerina» (78), particularly if Eugenio or Anselmo are the romantic alternatives. Zimic properly poses this question: «¿No son quizás Eugenio, Anselmo y los otros pretendientes una de las causas más cruciales de la desastrosa experiencia de Leandra?» (73) .

Perhaps all this was indeed nothing more than a sophomoric exercise in literary ostentation, and therefore the reason for Eugenio's anger is that Don Quijote breaks the spell he is sure he has cast over his listeners and interrupts the flow of encomia, principally from the canon47. Clemencín properly underscored his authorial self-consciousness: «en el discurso de Eugenio había más sutileza y atildadura de la que convenía al estado y profesión del orador» (1493b, n. 3 to I, 52), this in reference to Cervantes' phrase regarding the Canon's praise: «dijo que había dicho bien el cura en decir que los montes criaban letrados48». I stated above that Dorotea's «is not a spur-of-the-moment creation but a narrative artfully crafted to play on the sympathies»; Eugenio's tale may well be of the same mold, though seeking more praise than sympathy49. In the process «traza   —71→   de la propia Leandra un contorno hiperbólico, en que su fama llega a las antesalas de los reyes, y tan convencional también como para encarecer, contra todo el peso de los hechos, la "rara discreción, donaire y virtud" de la fugada» (Márquez Villanueva 79-80).

One who seeks the most faithful picture of Leandra can only return to Eugenio's opening remarks wherein, the reader must suppose, he might very well have been the least self-serving. Leandra-as-cabra hermosa is manchada as well as cerrera. Neither of these words offers firm evidence on the base of which to answer the Question with any certitude. Plumbing the critical ambivalence of manchada and entertaining a retrospect interpretation of cerrera are exegetical exercises of suspicious validity. She walks de pie cojo, another sign of malaise or injury, but how much can one appropriately read into the phrase? She is hembra and not sosegada, subject to the condición of her sex. Héctor Márquez would have us believe that Cervantes has created this interlude only to repeat his thoughts about the choice of marriage partners50, but had Cervantes planned to use Leandra's example in order to moralize, why stress flightiness without clearly showing the tragic outcome that might obtain? Dorotea's case is aggravated by Don Fernando's duplicity but great authorial pains are taken to lead her to success51. Marcela's self-defense is praised by   —72→   none other than Don Quijote. The childlike Doña Clara will be wed as will Luscinda and also Zoraida (the reader presumes), the latter to be remembered, Casalduero reminds us (200), as another who lost all jewels but that which is most precious and irreplaceable. The adulteress Camila is of course duly punished.

Leandra is the only female protagonist in the seven intercalated stories whose future is left unresolved. According to Immerwahr's scheme (12728) one should compare her with Marcela52, tales one and seven being complementary, but we hear the one directly and only hear of and about the other -and it seems perfectly appropriate to suspect the objectivity of the latter narrative told by yet another of Cervantes' untrustworthy narrators53. If one deduces that Marcela's defensive self-determination is repeated in Leandra, she didn't. But if, according to the scheme of «fascinating symmetry of antitheses» (Immerwahr 121, citing Friedrich Schlegel), her character must provide a contrast in weakness, she did.

Did she or didn't she? Cervantes in the prologue to the 1605 Quijote gave the reader the choice: «puedes decir de la historia todo aquello que to pareciese, sin temor que te calunien por el mal ni te premien por el bien que dijeres della» .

Works Cited

Avalle-Arce, Juan Bautista. «Cervantes y el narrador infidente». Dicenda, 7 (1987), 163-72.

Casalduero, Joaquin. Sentido y forma del Quijote (1605-1615). Madrid: Insula, 1967.

Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. Entremeses. Ed. Miguel Herrero García. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1962.

Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha, IV. Ed. Francisco Rodríguez-Marín. 9th ed. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1975.

Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha. Ed. John Jay Allen. 2 vols. 10th ed. Madrid: Cátedra, 1988.

Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha. Edición IV Centenario. «Enteramente comentada por [Diego] Clemencín». Valencia: Alfredo Ortells, 1991.

Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha, I. Ed. Vicente Gaos. Madrid: Gredos, 1987.

Covarrubias Horozco, Sebastián de. Tesoro de la Lengua Castellana o Española [1611]. Adiciones de Benito Remigio Noydens [1674]. Ed. Martín de Riquer, rep. Barcelona: Alta Fulla, 1987.

Fajardo, Salvador J. «Unveiling Dorotea or the Reader as Voyeur». Cervantes, 4 (1984), 89-108.

Fajardo, Salvador J. «The Enchanted Return: On the Conclusion to Don Quixote I». Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 16 (1986), 233-51.

Gayton, Edmund. Pleasant Notes upon Don Quixot [referred to as Festivous Notes in the headings of the verso pages and the book divisions]. London, 1654.

Hathaway, Robert L. «Dorotea, or the Narrators' Arts». Cervantes, 13 (1993), 109-26.


Herrero, Javier. «Arcadia's Inferno: Cervantes' Attack on Pastoral». Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, 55 (1978), 289-99.

Immerwahr, Raymond S. «Structural Symmetry in the Episodic Narratives of Don Quijote, Part One». Comparative Literature, 10 (1958), 121-35.

Johnson, Carroll B. Madness or Lust. A Psychoanalytical Approach to Don Quixote. Berkeley: U California P, 1983.

Márquez Villanueva, Francisco. Personajes y temas del Quijote. Madrid: Taurus, 1975.

Murillo, Luis A. A Critical Introduction to Don Quixote. New York: Peter Lang, 1988.

Rodríguez-Luis, Julio. Novedad y ejemplo de las novelas de Cervantes, I. Madrid: Porrúa Turanzas, 1980.

Unman, Pierre L. «The Surrogates of Baroque Marcela and Mannerist Leandra». Revista de Estudios Hispánicos, 5 (1971), 307-19.

Weiger, John G. «The Curious Pertinence of Eugenio's Tale in Don Quijote». MLN, 96 (1981), 261-85.

Wiltrout, Ann E. «Las mujeres del Quijote». Anales Cervantinos, 12 (1973), 167-72.

Zimic, Stanislav. «Sobre los amores de Leandra y Vicente de la Roca (Don Quijote, I caps. 50-52)». Anales Cervantinos, 30 (1992), 67-76.