See also p. 501, 1052b. As Gullón noted, the child seems to pick up more information than he means to or is aware of: Galdós, novelista moderno, 345. (N. del A.)

See, for example, p, 394, 1014b. (N. del A.)

In Alpha, Luis' advice to Abelarda parallels his advice to Villaamil in Chapter XXIII: «Pepín seguía exaltado. Viendo que su tía Abelarda estaba muy triste y dando suspiros, le dijo: tonta por qué suspiras tanto? porque tu novio no te quiere? Ya, ya comprendo yo. Pues pídeselo a Dios, necia» (Weber, The Miau Manuscript, 152). (N. del A.)

A very similar type of dialogue is that which takes place between Ángel Guerra and Doña Sales in Chapter III, X-XI, Part One of Ángel Guerra: Novelas y Miscelánea, 60-63. (N. del A.)

For Galdós' interest in demonology, see Carlos Clavería, «Galdós y los demonios», in Homenaje a J. A. van Praag (Amsterdam, 1956), 32-37. (N. del A.)

Weber, The Miau Manuscript, 110. (N. del A.)

See Rodgers, Pérez Galdós: Miau, 45; Ramsdem, «The Question of Responsibility», 64; and Correa, El simbolismo religioso, 120; and also pp. 392, 1013b; 439, 1030a; and 472, 1042b of the text. (N. del A.)

See Sackett, «The Meaning of Miau», 32; Rodríguez, Estudios, 62-63; and Weber, The Miau Manuscript, 110-11. The series of changes on the word monstruo which Galdós introduced during the proof-reading stage emphasizes the identification between father and son. (N. del A.)

After completing this article, and following Professor R. Cardona's suggestion, I read Henry James' novel What Maisie Knew, published nine years after Miau in 1897. Like Professor Cardona, I was immediately struck by the many points of similarity between the two works, specially as concerns the two child characters. For example, by using Maisie and Luisito as the innocent observers of the two parallel plots that unfold before their eyes, the authors are able to present the chaotic world in which the adult characters live; thus, the two children emerge, not only as the only stable figures, but also as the unifying force in each of the novels. In both works, the narrator operates some times in close association with the child's viewpoint, and at other times at some distance from it. The words uttered by the two children possess occasionally the quality of revelation, because they are the product of thought processes to which we have been denied access. Both children see a great deal of things which they fail to understand or which they totally misunderstand; often this leads to their reaching conclusions simpler than those arrived at by the reader or by other characters. What James says in his Preface about Maisie may equally well be applied to Luisito: «She is not only the extraordinary 'ironic centre'...; she has the wonderful importance of shedding a light far beyond any reach of her comprehension». The resemblance between the two children extends to other areas as well: Maisie's French doll, Lisette, is used, like Luisito's God, as a means of verbalizing the child's perplexities: «Little by little, however, she understood more, for it befell that she was enlightened by Lisette's questions, which reproduced the effect of her own upon those for whom she sat in the very darkness of Lisette» (Ch. V). Not unlike Luisito, Maisie tends to understand the literal meaning of the words she hears: «'He leans on me -he leans on me!' she only announced from time to time; and she was more surprised than amused when, later on, she accidentally found she had given her pupil [Maisie] the impression of a support literally supplied by her person» (Ch. XI). There exist, however, some important differences between the two novels: unlike Galdós, James decided to keep Maisie's limited perspective the very field of his picture. Nevertheless, a systematic comparison between these two great novels should prove extremely rewarding, and I am very grateful to Professor Cardona for drawing my attention to James' work. (N. del A.)

Pienso en el trabajo de Richard A. Cardwell, «Galdós's Doña Perfecta: Art or Argument», en Anales Galdosianos, VII (1972), pp. 29-47. Fuera de la validez de los argumentos me importa subrayar la dualidad de interpretaciones de una novela considerada de sentido unívoco por casi cien años. «Galdós is not offering one view as against another but rather that he is weighing the weaknesses of both sides» (p. 33). «Hence to interpret the novel in terms of strict ideological divisions seems inappropriate» (p. 33). (N. del A.)