Visor de obras.

  —9→  

University of Toronto

My topic, over a century old, can offer no novelty, except perhaps in its treatment. From as early as 1878 and up to 1954, a series of critics and biographers -such as Díaz de Benjumea², Cotarelo y Mori³, Rodríguez Marín⁴, and Astrana Marín⁵- expressed the belief that some, or much, or even all, of La Galatea had been written before its author returned from captivity. Such views were completely ignored by the editors   —10→   Schevill and Bonilla, whose unsupported statement that the pastoral was probably written in the 1580s⁶ seemed, for some strange reason, to gain general credence.

So things stood until 1954, when Amezúa published a letter penned by Cervantes on February 17, 1582, in which the writer revealed that he was «criando a Galatea»⁷. And again, for some strange reason, it seems to have been generally agreed that this demonstrated that La Galatea was written wholly in the 1580s⁸.

But that letter tells us only that Cervantes was working on his manuscript in 1582 -something we might have guessed anyway. It tells us nothing about when he began it, or whether it was a first draft or a revision or an expansion. Answers must still be sought.

A work with the loose structure and tenuous story-line of a pastoral novel lends itself to intermittent composition; poems and tales can be written independently of the main theme, which can be easily modified to accommodate them; substitutions and revisions need cause little trouble, and the final text may contain elements of many different vintages.

Now Cervantes was prone to intermittent composition⁹; he was also prone to delayed publication, as his plays and short stories demonstrate. We know that he was writing verse before he left for Italy, and while he was in captivity¹⁰; and I have argued that the first draft of «La española inglesa» dates from the 1560s¹¹. Was the writing of La Galatea also spread over many years? Was its publication also delayed?

Do not expect the author's Dedication and Prologue to throw any light on the matter. Rather they are designed, I fear, to confuse   —11→   the reader. The description of the book as «estas primicias de mi corto ingenio» (I, 1)¹² can only be, at best, a half-truth. On the one hand his claim that he does not wish to delay publication any longer suggests that the manuscript had been completed some time before¹³; on the other hand, his comment that he could be excused for writing it because he had only recently left youth behind clearly implies that he had just finished it¹⁴.

Cervantes's obfuscations and ambiguities are worse than useless; and the earlier scholars' speculations -no doubt inspired by the author's apparently artless confidences- are not to be trusted. Our only recourse is to the text of the novel itself. An examination of it leads to the following conclusion: that Books I to III were written in the late 1560s, and Books IV to VI in the 1580s, when certain revisions were made to both the drafted first half and the earlier-planned second half.

First, evidence from historical and autobiographical references in the text.

Books IV to VI contain a number of such references that point to late composition.

In Book IV Cervantes makes complimentary mention of seven characters from El Pastor de Fílida, published in 1582¹⁵. This suggests that at the time of writing Cervantes knew that publication of Gálvez de Montalvo's novel was imminent or already a fact (a compliment to a work unknown to the public would have little point). Was Cervantes, then, composing Book IV when he wrote his letter?

In Book V the resumed tale of Timbrio and Silerio includes stirring descriptions of two storms at sea, complete with a series of technical nautical terms and manoeuvres which would come naturally only to one who had spent considerable time on the water (II, 106-7, 118-20)¹⁶; allusion is made to a number of the smaller islands dotting   —12→   the central Mediterranean -Stromboli, Lipari, Pantelleria, Lampedusa, Zembra (II, 106-7)- to «los recién derribados muros de la Goleta», walls which had been leveled in 1574 (II, 107), to the ruins of Carthage bordering the sea (II, 107), and to the brilliant picture offered by Genoa to those passing on board ship (II, 107-8)¹⁷. An account of a battle with Corsair galleys led by the redoubtable Arnaute Mamí(II, 113-16) harks back in part to the battle that led to Cervantes's capture¹⁸.

In all this the author is clearly drawing on memories of his Mediterranean journeys and adventures.

Book VI contains the «Canto de Calíope» (II, 109-225), listing, among others, poets who had made a reputation or published or composed verse in the early 1580s.

If Cervantes had composed the first three books after his return from captivity, one would expect to find there also a comparable incidence of historical and autobiographical material. But such is not the case; the difference from the last three books is, in this respect, striking.

For example, Manuel de Montoliu, an expert witness, can find, in Silerio's tale (Books II-III) no reflection of any Cervantine acquaintance with Catalan geography¹⁹. His point is well made: the port where the main action takes place is given no name (I, 129); else-where only Rosas (I, 139) and Barcelona (I, 130, 134, 139) are mentioned, and the latter city, recipient of high praise in later works of Cervantes, is here simply termed «big» (I, 130); the Viceroy is called «el Virrey de Barcelona» (I, 130); we must wait until the second half of the novel to be told that the Catalans were identifiable as such by their dress and speech²⁰ -nothing is said about this in Books I to III. The remarks about Catalan bandits prove little: Cervantes could   —13→   have learnt about them from afar²¹, and the activities attributed to them in the tale of the two friends all derive from Heliodorus²².

So with Italy. In Books II and III, for example, Silerio recounts various happenings in and around Naples, a city that in other works of Cervantes is evoked with nostalgic delight. But here, as Cinti points out, «non risveglia nessuna reazione sentimentale» -«it awakens no emotional response»²³. Timbrio's sailing from Gaeta reveals Cervantes's knowledge, not of that port, but of Gil Polo's novel, which mentions it as Marcelio's point of disembarkation²⁴.

All such evidence strongly suggests that Cervantes wrote Books I to III before going abroad.

But one question does arise.

Early in Book III we are told that Pransiles and Timbrio are to fight their duel «en una tierra del estado del duque de Gravina» (I, 169) near Naples. Mention of this rarely-quoted ducal name must give us pause. It need not, however, imply that Cervantes, before writing this passage, had personally seen the Palazzo Gravina in Naples²⁵, or encountered, outside the city, the ducal estates (which, in any case, lay on the other side of the Apennines)²⁶; but rather that he had read Question de amor, a sixteenth-century best-seller (over twenty editions), which lists the Gravina family among the vice-regal   —14→   entourage²⁷. Cervantes was behaving in this instance as he was to later, in Don Quijote, when, as Prof. McCready has pointed out, he selected the name «el caballero Fonseca» from a similar list of knights in Tirante el blanco²⁸. He must have made a mental note of such use ful compilations.

Secondly, evidence from literary sources.

The main sources of La Galatea were Sannazaro's, Montemayor's, and Gil Polo's pastoral novels, Garcilaso's verse, and Heliodorus's Theagenes and Chariclea. All this material was available to Cervantes in the late 1560s in original or translated texts, and its influence is visible both early and late in his pastoral²⁹.

But there is a notable difference between the first and second halves of the novel in their use of other sources.

Overt and covert Italian influence is strong in the second half. Calliope praises Petrarch, Dante, and Ariosto (II, 187-8); mention is made of the Italian poet and humanist Telesio³⁰; a line of Italian -«che per tal variar natura è bella»- is quoted in the original (II, 110); the debate on love in Book IV draws heavily on Bembo's Gli Asolani and Equicola's Di natura d'amore, translated verbatim, the bibliographical evidence suggests, by Cervantes himself³¹. The translations are both fluent and accurate, testifying to a command of Italian such as could be acquired only by residence in Italy.

  —15→  

In contrast, the philographic substance of Books I to III is provided by Gil Polo (on jealousy)³²and Castiglione, whose Cortegiano could have been read by Cervantes from early days in Boscán's version. One notes that all the Castiglione parallels listed by López Estrada are taken from Books I to III³³.

The change from dependence on Gil Polo and Castiglione in Books I to III to dependence on Bembo and Equicola in Book IV is sudden and complete, suggesting a prolonged hiatus in composition.

It has, moreover, an unexpected result: the transformation of «el desamorado Lenio». This character first appears in Book I, and soon shows himself to be argumentative, short-tempered, and pugnacious. His discussion with Elicio and Erastro about love (I, 84-6) soon develops into an altercation quickly descending to personalities.

Yet in Book IV he becomes the vehicle for the love-theories of Bembo and Equicola, handling abstractions calmly and competently at the philosophical level (II, 44-54). To save face at this sudden sea-change, Cervantes has Elicio explain that Lenio had in fact spent his best years in praiseworthy studies on the banks of the Tormes (II, 72). Lenio is now equated with Tirsi and Damón. Why this bizarre development?

It is reasonable to assume that Cervantes first introduced Tirsi and Damón to bear the burden of the «razones de filosofía» of which he boasts in the prologue (I, 8). Damón did indeed do his part in Book III with his discourse on jealousy (I, 128-31); doubtless a discourse on love by Tirsi was planned for Book IV (in imitation of Montemayor's Book IV)³⁴-most probably a passage plagiarized from Boscán's translation of Il Cortegiano. But in Italy Cervantes found the best-selling works of Bembo and Equicola, with enough material to furnish, not just a discourse, but a debate -a debate between a supporter and an enemy of love. But the only enemy of love available from Books I to III was «el desamorado Lenio», who was therefore awkwardly pressed into service. Cervantes's failure, in revision, to adjust the earlier Lenio to the later is typical.

What of the intercalated stories in Books I to III? Can Italian influence be seen there?

Investigation of the sources of the tragic story of Lisandro in Book I, with its theme of a family feud and its bloody consequences, has suffered in the past from the assumption that its origins could be   —16→   identified with those of Romeo and Juliet³⁵. It was López Estrada who finally pointed out «la gran diferencia» between Cervantes's tale and those of Bandello and Luigi da Porto³⁶; but to Ellen Anderson must go the credit for establishing by her lucid analysis the primacy of Alonso Pérez's story of Sagastes and Disteo as Cervantes's main source. No Bandello, no Luigi da Porto³⁷.

The Story of the Two Friends (Books II-V) was likewise earlier believed to be derived from Boccaccio's story of Tito and Gisippo³⁸, but Professor Avalle-Arce concluded that this was not necessarily the case³⁹. Now, more precisely, we can say that Cervantes's tale is a tight weave of elements derived directly from Theagenes and Chariclea, La vida del Ysopet, El caballero Cifar, Núñez de Reinoso's Clareo y Florisea, Jerónimo de Contreras's Selva de aventuras, Gil Polo's Diana enamorada, Alonso Pérez's Diana, and Timoneda's Patrañuelo, all works available in the late 1560s in Spanish texts. There are indeed points of contact between the Boccaccian text and La Galatea, but all of them are also found in Timoneda's work. Boccaccio as a direct source of Cervantes's tale can be dismissed⁴⁰.

In summary, nowhere does the prose of Books I-III show indebtedness to Italian forerunners. The case for their early composition grows even stronger.

Thirdly, evidence from the time-sequence.

There is ever greater evidence identifying Lauso with Cervantes, and Damón with Pedro Laínez. Both writers were living in Madrid in the late 1560s, apparently moving in similar circles, both, for example, writing poems on the death of Isabel de Valois⁴¹. Lauso first   —17→   appears in Book III of the novel, on Day 4, presented simply as one of three «dispuestos pastores», a suitably modest introduction by an apprentice author of his fictional counterpart, who is then welcomed by his «antiguo y verdadero amigo», Damón (I, 232).

Early in Book IV, however, we are told that Lauso has travelled through many parts of Spain and all Europe and Asia (seemingly a misprint for Africa), and spent many years in courtly exercises and martial pursuits (II, 29, 34). Such a description would be applicable to Cervantes after he had returned from captivity, and must have been written then. If Book III had been written at the same time as Book IV, surely such impressive credentials would have been presented then, on Lauso's first appearance? We are left with the persuasion that Book III was written in 1569, and Book IV in the 1580s.

After their first meeting in Book III on Day 4, the two friends next meet in Book V on Day 5. They then discuss the numerous events that had taken place since their last encounter, when D. Astraliano (Don John of Austria) had left «los cisalpinos pastos» to crush those who had rebelled against his brother and the true faith (II, 93-4). The reference is either to April 1569, when Don John had left Aranjuez-on the Tagus, scene of La Galatea, be it noted-to go into the mountains (hence «cisalpinos pastos») to crush the moriscos; or the reference could be to 1576, when Don John was named governor of Flanders⁴².

  —18→  

But since both Cervantes and Laínez were in Madrid in 1569, and Laínez was certainly not with Cervantes in Algiers in 1576, we conclude that the previous meeting of Lauso and Damón in Book III on Day 4 had taken place in 1569.

Now we are not told what the «numerous events» were that had taken place since that meeting; but the mention of them in juxtaposition to the mention of Don John suggests that they were of national or international importance, and as such would have occurred only over an extended period; what is beyond all doubt is that they did not all happen overnight, between Days 4 and 5, with news of all of them reaching Lauso and Damón on the Tagus on that same night.

Obviously Cervantes has confused fictional and historical time -no doubt a constant danger in a roman à clef- and transferred to one night of the narrative the protracted period separating two successive real-life meetings of Cervantes and Laínez, which can only be their last meeting in 1569 and their reunion in or after 1580. It follows that the meeting in Book III was linked in Cervantes's mind with 1569, and the later meeting in Book V with the 1580s. They would have been so linked if those had been their respective dates of composition.

Fourthly, evidence of revision in Books I-III.

I have argued for an early date for the composition of Books I-III. Yet when we turn to the verse in these three books, we find a number of indications to the contrary.

In general, this verse resembles compositions of the 1560s, the choice of forms apparently dictated by Montemayor's⁴³. This, following our argument, is to be expected. What is not expected is the presence, in the earlier pages of Book I, of three poems showing the strong direct influence of recent or contemporary Italian poets. Two can be discussed together: the opening poem -«Mientras que al triste lamentable accento» (I, 15-16)- and the fifth -«Afuera el fuego, el lazo, el hielo y flecha» (I, 57)- both distinguished by plurimembración and correlación, as found in Luigi Groto's Rime, which in 1577 had brought   —19→   back to favour in Italy a Quattrocentist fashion for this type of verse⁴⁴. Cervantes imitated it in octavas sent on November 8, 1579, to fellowcaptive Antonio Veneziano⁴⁵, and one suspects that the two poems in La Galatea were also written at about that time. The younger Cervantes seems to have liked composing a group of poems in quick succession on the same theme: four, for example, on the death of Isabel de Valois⁴⁶.

The other poem in question is the seventh in Book I, a sestina, obligatory in any pastoral novel, in this case one based, as Kenneth Allen has shown by detailed comparison, on a sextina in Book I of Gli Asolani, where Cervantes also found substance for the debate in Book IV of La Galatea and the madrigal in Don Quijote⁴⁷.

The presence of these three imitations of Italian poets can be attributed to Cervantes's desire, in the 1580s, to offset the then somewhat old-fashioned air of the opening pages of his novel by adding or substituting poems of presumed greater attraction or novelty, to give his work a façade of greater topicality.

Indeed, we catch Cervantes in the very act of revision. It seems not to have been generally noticed that La Galatea opens with a «false start». The novel begins in medias res with a song sung by Elicio: we are now launched into Day 1; the narrator, after analysing Elicio's relations with Galatea, continues: «y así, un día...» (I, 18), with the unbroken linear narrative then persisting for seventy page -to the end of Book I. Day 1, the day when Elicio was singing his song, has been, apparently, wholly forgotten. All this   —20→   points to careless revision. Reconstructing, we can say that, in the original draft, the narrative began (in imitation of Montemayor's opening) with the analysis of the Elicio-Galatea relationship, and that Cervantes, in revision, added the introductory song without adjusting the narrative sequence.

Since he would almost certainly have included a sestina in his early draft, we may assume that the Bembo calque was a substitution, not an addition.

Galatea's sonnet («Afuera el fuego...»), sung as she is on her way, alone, to meet Florisea, could have been interpolated with minimum disturbance of the text and the flow of narrative⁴⁸.

Finally to be noted, in the canto alterno of Elicio and Erastro in Book I (I, 25-28), is the presence of an octave («La blanca nieve y colorada rosa») condensed from a sonnet by Amalteo⁴⁹. Elicio's lines (I, 26) follow immediately upon an octave that contains, according to the editor, a «repetición conceptuosa propia de la lírica cancioneril, pero que ya había caído en desuso para la época de La Galatea» (I, 26, note). Cervantes was, in revision, presumably attempting to restore the balance.

Fifthly, evidence of revision in Books IV-VI.

Did Cervantes, before leaving Spain, plan or write any material for the three later books? And, if so, did he, on his return, revise any of his plan, or any material already written? Some answers to these questions are possible.

In Book IV Damón recites a long poem that, according to him, Lauso wrote in praise of pastoral life before he came to share it; this poem, he says, the author had sent to Larsileo, experienced in courtly affairs, and it had been praised by the recipient, and approved by all who had seen it «en aquel tiempo» (II, 26-40). The reference is obviously   —21→   to the «Epístola a Mateo Vázquez», of which the lines in La Galatea are a kind of pastoral reworking, copying some of the epistle's phraseology⁵⁰. They were probably written not long after the «Epístola», that is, around 1577. They certainly could not have been part of any plan made in the 1560s.

I have already dealt with the presumed change in plans, in Book IV, for the discussion of the nature of love.

Timbrio's tale in Book V (II, 105-22) is deceptive. First appearances suggest that it is a late invention, introduced by Cervantes after his return, to add drama and excitement to his novel. Timbrio's journey from Gaeta back to Gaeta, and his and the ladies' journey from Gaeta to the Catalan coast advance the central plot of the story hardly at all, and have all the air of an interpolation. But Timbrio's account is based on the same sources as Silerio's, written in the 1560s. This suggests that both were planned at the same time, one as Heliodoran counterpart of the other, and that Cervantes in the 1580s followed a plan of narrative made years before, adding picturesque detail from his own experience. That he re-wrote a story first written in the 1560s is unlikely: I know of no such extensive re-writing by him elsewhere (the revisions of the two novelas in the Porras Ms. are, I have argued in another place, by Porras himself)⁵¹.

The elegy for Meliso in Book VI (II, 177-83) commemorates Hurtado de Mendoza fittingly, with appropriate allusions to his career. As a traditional pastoral component, one would expect it to have formed part of the original plan. But how could it have, if the poet honoured did not die until 1575? And if it had been written after 1575, why does it display early habits of Cervantes as versifier -such as his use of the phrase «el ancho suelo hispano» (II, 179) and of the rhyme-word «malla» (II, 178)⁵²? Two lines of the elegy answer such questions:

¡Oh muerte, que con presta violencia tal vida en poca tierra reduciste!

(II, 178)

Hurtado de Mendoza did not die «con presta violencia» -but the revered Garcilaso did. This careless slip in revision shows that Cervantes had written the elegy earlier to do homage to Garcilaso, and had modified it in the 1580s to mourn the more recently deceased poet.

  —22→  

The evidence of revisions in Books IV and V and VI suggests that Cervantes, in the 1580s, was following a plan made for those three books before he left for Italy. Perhaps a sense of loyalty to his earlier self, or his unease with revision, restrained him from making more than relatively minor modifications. We are thus denied the opportunity of gauging the full measure of his artistic and critical development during his years abroad. But hints there are: his experiments with a new (for him) literary manner; his wish to give greater depth to the analysis of the workings of the human heart; his vague dissatisfaction with accepted models of prose narrative -all early, halting steps, perhaps, but already set on the path that would, in the fullness of time, lead to an unimagined New World of prose fiction.

  —23→  

Alarcos García, Emilio. «Cervantes y Boccaccio». Homenaje a Cervantes. II. Estudios Cervantinos. Ed. Francisco Sánchez-Castañer. Valencia: Mediterráneo, 1950.

Alborg, Juan Luis. Cervantes. Madrid: Gredos, 1966.

Allen, Kenneth P. «Cervantes' Galatea and the Discorso intorno al comporre dei romanzi of Giraldo Cinthio». Revista Hispánica Moderna 39 (1976-77): 52-68.

Alonso, Dámaso. Poesía española. Ensayo de métodos y límites estilísticos. Madrid: Gredos, 1950.

Alonso, Dámaso, and Carlos Bousoño. Seis calas en la expresión literaria española. Madrid: Gredos, 1951.

Alonso Cortés, Narciso. Casos cervantinos que tocan a Valladolid. Madrid: Junta para Ampliación de Estudios, 1916.

Amezúa y Mayo, Agustín G. de. «Una carta desconocida e inédita de Cervantes». Boletín de la Real Academia Española 34 (1954): 217-23.

Anderson, Ellen M. «Role-Playing and Role-Change as Means of Self-Discovery in Selected Works of Cervantes». Diss. U of Toronto, 1986.

Anon. Question de amor de dos enamorados. Orígenes de la novela. Ed. M. Menéndez y Pelayo. NBAE 7. Madrid: Bailly/Baillière. II (1907): 41-98.

Astrana Marín, Luis. Vida ejemplar y heroica de Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra. Vol. 3. Madrid: Reus, 1951.

Avalle-Arce, Juan Bautista. «La captura de Cervantes». Boletín de la Real Academia Española 48 (1968): 237-80.

——. Nuevos deslindes cervantinos. Barcelona: Ariel, 1975.

Benjumea, Nicolás Díaz de. La verdad sobre el Quijote. Madrid: Gaspar, 1878.

  —24→  

Blanco Sánchez, Antonio. Entre Fray Luis y Quevedo: en busca de Francisco de la Torre. Madrid: Atlas, 1982.

Blecua, José Manuel. «Garcilaso y Cervantes». Homenaje a Cervantes. Madrid: Insula, 1947: 141-50.

Buchanan, Milton A. «The Works of Cervantes and their Dates of Composition». Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada 32 (1938): 23-39.

Castro, Américo. El pensamiento de Cervantes. Ed. Julio Rodríguez-Puértolas. Barcelona: Noguer, 1972.

Ceci, Giuseppe. «Il Palazzo Gravina». Napoli Nobilissima 6 (1897): 1-4, 24-31.

Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. La Galatea. Ed. Juan Bautista Avalle-Arce. 2 vols. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1961.

——. La Galatea. Ed. Rudolph Schevill and Adolfo Bonilla. 2 vols. Madrid, 1914.

——. La Galatea. Trans. and ed. Bruna Cinti. Tutte le opere. Ed. Franco Meregalli. Milano: Mursia, 1971. I, 5-293.

——. La Galatea. Ed. Enriqueta Hors. Madrid: CIAP, 1931.

——. Comedias y entremeses. Poesías sueltas. Ed. Rudolph Schevill and Adolfo Bonilla. Vol. 6. Madrid, 1922: 3-107.

——. Rinconete y Cortadillo. Ed. Francisco Rodríguez Marín. Madrid, 1920.

Cotarelo y Mori, Emilio. Efemérides cervantinas. Madrid, 1905.

Fucilla, Joseph G. «A Rhetorical Pattern in Renaissance and Baroque Poetry». Studies in the Renaissance 3 (1956): 23-48.

——. Estudios sobre el petrarquismo en España. Madrid: C.S.I.C., 1960.

Gálvez de Montalvo, Luis. El pastor de Fílida. Orígenes de la novela. Ed.

M. Menéndez y Pelayo. NBAE 7. Madrid: Bailly/Baillière. II (1907): 399-484.

Gil Polo, Gaspar. Diana enamorada. Ed. Rafael Ferreres. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1958.

Heliodorus. Historia etiópica de los amores de Teágenes y Cariclea. Traducida en romance por Fernando de Mena. Ed. Francisco López Estrada. Madrid: Aldus, 1954.

La Torre, Francisco de. Poesías. Ed. Alonso Zamora Vicente. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1956.

Laínez (Laynez), Pedro. Poesías de Pedro Laínez. Ed. Antonio Marín Ocete. Granada: U de Granada, 1950.

——. Obras de Pedro Laynez. Ed. Joaquín de Entrambasaguas. 2 vols. Madrid: C.S.I.C., 1951.

López Estrada, Francisco. Estudio crítico de La Galatea. La Laguna de Tenerife: U de La Laguna, 1948.

  —25→  

McCready, Warren T. «Cervantes and the "Caballero Fonseca"». Modern Languages Notes 73 (1958): 33-35.

Montemayor, Jorge de. Los siete libros de la Diana. Ed. Francisco López Estrada. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1946.

Montoliu, Manuel de. Cervantes y Barcelona. Barcelona, 1947.

Pérez Pastor, Cristóbal. Bibliografía madrileña. 3 vols. Madrid: Biblioteca Nacional, 1891-1907.

Popescu-Telega, Alejandru. Cervantes şi Italia. Studiu de literaturi comparate. Craiova: Ramuri [1931?].

Riquer, Martín de. Cervantes en Barcelona. Barcelona: Sirmio, 1989.

Rodríguez Marín, Francisco. Barahona de Soto. Madrid: Real Academia Española, 1903.

Rotunda, Dominic P. «A Boccaccian Theme in the Galatea of Cervantes». Romanic Review 20 (1929): 245.

Ruta, Caterina. «Le ottave di Cervantes per Antonio Veneziano e Celia». Bolletino del Centro di Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani 14 (1979): 1-17.

——. «Cervantes e i danni d'amore». Quaderni di lingue e letterature straniere 5-6 (1980-81): 199-214.

Sannazaro, Jacobo. Arcadia. Ed. Michele Scherillo. Torino: Loescher, 1888.

——. Arcadia. Ed. Enrico Carrara. Torino: Unione Tipografico-Editrice Torinese, 1948.

Schevill, Rudolph. «Laínez, Figueroa and Cervantes». Homenaje ofrecido a Menéndez Pidal. Madrid: Hernando, 1925: I, 425-41.

Sorieri, Louis. Boccaccio's Story of Tito and Gisippo in European Literature. New York: Institute of French Studies, 1937.

Stagg, Geoffrey. «Revision in Don Quixote, Part I». Hispanic Studies in Honour of I. González Llubera. Oxford: Dolphin, 1959.

——. «Plagiarism in La Galatea.» Filologia Romanza 6 (1959): 255-76.

——. «The Refracted Image: Porras and Cervantes». Cervantes 4 (1984): 139-53.

——. «The Composition and Revision of "La española inglesa"». Studies in Honor of Bruce W. Wardropper. Ed. Dian Fox, Harry Sieber, Robert Ter Horst. Newark, Delaware: Juan de la Cuesta, 1989.

Stegmann, Tilbert Diego. Cervantes' Muster-Roman «Persiles». Epentheorie und Romanpraxis um 1600. Hamburg: Lüdke, 1971.

Torraca, Francesco. «Gl'imitatori stranieri di Iacopo Sannazaro». Scritti vari. Milano: Dante Alighieri, 1928. 111-210.

Various. Enciclopedia Italiana di Scienzi, Lettere ed Arti. Treves: Treccani, 1933.

Wellington, M. Z. «La Arcadia de Sannazaro y La Galatea de Cervantes». Hispanófila 3 (1959): 7-18.