81
M. Romera-Navarro, Autógrafos cervantinos. Estudio (Austin, Texas: University of Texas, 1954), p. 2. (N. from the A.)
82
Ibid., p. 3. (N. from the A.)
83
Ibid., pp. 8, 10. (N. from the A.)
84
Straining the argument to the utmost, one could hypothesize that, in 1604, Porras, aware of Cervantes's literary gifts, employed him to polish the two originals, but it is again improbable that the Licentiate would then painstakingly revise the revision of the man hired as the expert. In any case, if Cervantes had been the amanuensis, the scholars who handled the manuscript would surely have recognised his handwriting and reported the fact. (N. from the A.)
85
The printed version reads: Cervantes original --> Cuesta --> Porras; it has been changed to conform to the correction sheet issued by T. Lathrop. -FJ. (N. from the E.)
86
See, for example, Aden W. Hayes, «Narrative 'errors' in Rinconete y Cortadillo», Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, 58 (1981), 13-20. (N. from the A.)
87
Julián Apráiz describes this Memorial and quotes a long passage from it in his «Curiosidades cervantinas», Homenaje a Menéndez y Pelayo (Madrid: Suárez, 1899), pp. 242-44. (N. from the A.)
88
A. C. de Amezúa y Mayo, ed., El casamiento engañoso y El coloquio de los perros (Madrid: Bailly-Baillière, 1912), pp. 520-21 (note 164). (N. from the A.)