—58→
Colgate University
¿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:
| (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:
| (I,28) | ||
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.
—64→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?:
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:
| (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 |
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»
.
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.
—74→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.