Of course, the necessity to use the personnel available in a given theatrical company is sufficient to explain the use of an actress (in this case, Catalina Hernández Verdeseca, the wife of the celebrated autor de comedias Gaspar de Porres) in a given role, particularly in an era when actresses commonly played masculine roles. However, this is the only case I know in Cervantes' theatrical works where the name of a specific performer of either sex is designated for a specific role of either gender -it is unique even in the text of Los baños itself. Even -perhaps especially- if it is a slip of the pen, this stage-direction suggests that dressing as a member of the opposite sex and adopting the costume of the opposing religion were closely associated in Cervantes' mind at the time when this play was composed. (N. from the A.)

They are also heterosexual, with the exception of one character, the Cadí in La gran sultana. His homosexual and pedophiliac tendencies are jokingly alluded to by the quasi-gracioso Madrigal (II, 418). Nevertheless, he makes no sexual overtures to any character during the play, again a significant change from his analogues of the Algerian dramas. (N. from the A.)

Hegyi (100-101) points out that male cross-dressing, while less common than female on the Spanish stage, was used especially in the commedia dell'arte, where it served to heighten a piece's humor, exactly as it does in La gran sultana. (N. from the A.)

Combet's reading ignores the positive outcome of Lamberto/Zelinda's transvestism in La gran sultana, even though it mentions the episode (290). Indeed, he uses its existence as evidence to support an assertion that male transvestism throughout Cervantes' oeuvre results only in ridicule, classing it among other, very different, examples, whose outcomes are far less prestigious for their characters: Pedro de Urdemalas and the Tozuelo incident in Book III of Persiles (290-1). He goes on to establish an equivalence of the androgyny that male cross-dressing suggests and latent homosexuality, especially in Book I of Persiles (293). Combet's conclusion relies almost exclusively on Freudian psychology (with a cursory nod to Lacan), including Freud's axiom that androgyny can represent only an insufficient differentiation of the sexes (a clear differentiation presumed the only desirable state of a psychologically healthy humanity). The masculine orientation of the Freudian subject is taken by Combet to be that of the ideal, «normal» human agent. Hence, Combet classifies transvestism as among Cervantes' «conduites fétichistes». (For a critique of the concept of fetishism as an exclusively masculine condition, and a contention that it underlies all theatrical representation, see Garber 118-27.) Nowhere does Combet take into account any of the cogent feminist critique of classical Freudian psychology (Luce Irigaray, to name but one of Combet's compatriots). Moreover, his argument assumes that human psychology in all periods of history is everywhere and always identical, an assumption that recent research on early modern Europe in general, to say nothing of Golden Age Spain in particular, does not substantiate (Mariscal Contradictory Subjects 61-2). As we have seen, Wilson provides convincing evidence that in Cervantes' own time androgyny was a symbol of human wholeness, while El Saffar («Literary Reflections» 7-9) argues persuasively that the extreme differentiation of the sexes in the rearing of children (Freud's definition of a normal upbringing) was only beginning, and in the upper classes alone, during the sixteenth century. (N. from the A.)

Throughout this essay I have used the spelling of «Quixote» for the character and Quijote for the work. (N. from the A.)

I am referring here to those sixteenth-century (and late fifteenth) romances of chivalry written in Spanish. As we know, many other sources for Cervantine chivalric parodies have been suggested, including Italian sixteenth-century romances, Arthurian and Carolingian romances, the Spanish ballads (romances), and others. (N. from the A.)

See Daniel Eisenberg (1987, 3-44) on this point as well as the possibility that Cervantes wrote his own romance of chivalry. Instinct would suggest a couple of possibilities: first, that like the «second author» of Don Quijote of I, 8, Cervantes read everything that came his way, even scraps of paper, and second, that at some point in his life -like Santa Teresa, Ignatius of Loyola, Juan de Valdés, Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo, the Emperor Charles V as well as many lesser personages- he was fond of these endless tales of fabulous and magical adventures, despite his harsh criticism of their defects, including their possibly pernicious effect on the unsophisticated. In any case, still remaining to be written is a detailed study of the connection between the romances of chivalry and Don Quijote. (N. from the A.)

Few scholars these days are familiar with sixteenth-century Spanish romances beyond Amadís and the Spanish translations of Breton and Carolingian material. (The Catalan Tirant, in contrast, seems to be undergoing a revival.) Exceptions are Daniel Eisenberg, one of the foremost authorities on the Spanish romances, Martín de Riquer, Sydney Cravens and Marie Cort Daniels on Feliciano de Silva, and a handful who have studied or edited individual romances. For details see Eisenberg, Bibliography, and the last few years of JHP. (N. from the A.)

See Clemencín's notes to his edition and also Daniel Eisenberg's comments on the significance of Clemencín's contribution (Romances, 132-36). Jeanne Ellis (372-79) argues for reading the romances in conjunction with the Quijote. (N. from the A.)

Another of Thomas's typical statements indicates his determination to remain at a safely ironic distance from his subject: «Satisfied with his previous performance, Montalvo announced his intention of serving up more of the same dish» (68). One must wonder in passing what can have persuaded him to take on a project for which he had such little enthusiasm. (N. from the A.)