It appears that all the assertions here made by Pellicer are mistaken. (1) Cervantes did not return to Spain in the spring of 1581, but late in 1580; (2) he did not reside permanently in Madrid during 1581, for we find him at Tomar on May 21 of that year; (3) if we are to understand that the Galatea was composed in 1684, this is disproved by the fact that the manuscript was passed by the censor on February 1, 1584, and must naturally have been in his possession for some time previously; (4) it will be shewn that the Galatea was not published in 1584, but in 1585. Pellicer is not to be blamed for not knowing the real facts. The pity is that he should give his guesses as though they were certainties. Yet, in a sense, events have justified his boldness; for no man's guesses have been more widely accepted.
[5] See Martín Fernández de Navarrete's Vida de Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (Madrid, 1819), pp. 65-68. Navarrete, however, points out that the Galatea cannot have appeared early in 1584, as his predecessors had alleged: "No se publicó hasta los últimos meses de aquel año." I do not understand him to say that the book was published at Madrid.
[6] See George Ticknor's History of Spanish Literature (Sixth American Edition, Boston, 1888), vol. ii., p. 117.
[7] Amongst others, John Gibson Lockhart in his Introduction to a reprint of Peter Motteux's version of Don Quixote (Edinburgh, 1822), vol. i., p. 25; Thomas Roscoe, The Life and Writings of Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (London, 1839), p. 38; Mrs. Oliphant in her Cervantes (Edinburgh and London, 1880), p. 76; and Alexander James Duffield in his Don Quixote: his critics and commentators (London, 1881), p. 79. In his Later Renaissance (London, 1898), p. 149, Mr. David Hannay gives the date as 1580. On the other hand, John Ormsby stated the facts with his habitual accuracy in the Introduction to the first edition of his translation of Don Quixote (London, 1885), vol. i., p. 29.
[8] See C.-B. Dumaine's Essai sur la vie et les œuvres de Cervantes d'après un travail inédit de D. Luis Carreras (Paris, 1897), p. 47: "Les vers de la Galatée remontent au temps de son séjour en Italie. Ces poésies étaient addressées à une dame, à laquelle il témoignait de tendres sentiments."
[9] See Sr. D. José María Asensio y Toledo's Nuevos documentos para ilustrar la vida de Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, con algunas observaciones y articulos sobre la vida y obras del mismo autor y las pruebas de la autenticidad de su verdadero retrato (Seville, 1864), pp. 51-52. Sr. Asensio y Toledo, who repeats his view as to the date of composition in his Cervantes y sus obras (Barcelona, 1901), p. 195, relies mainly on an expression in the preface: "Huyendo destos dos inconvenientes no he publicado antes de ahora este libro." Taken by itself, this phrase certainly implies that the book had been completed some time before; but the passage is too rhetorically, and too vaguely, worded to admit of safe deductions being drawn from it. The idea that the Galatea was written in Portugal was thrown out long ago by Eustaquio Fernández de Navarrete: see his Bosquejo histórico sobre la novela española in Manuel Rivadeneyra, Biblioteca de autores españoles, (Madrid, 1854), vol. xxxiii., p. xxiv.
[10] Lucas Gracián Dantisco wrote an imitation of Della Casa's book under the title of Galateo español (Barcelona, 1594). His brother, Tomás, is mentioned by Cervantes in the Canto de Calíope.
[11] The earliest known edition of the Celestina is believed to be represented by an unique copy which was once in Heber's collection. The colophon of this volume is dated Burgos 1499; but there is some doubt concerning the date inasmuch as the last page has been recently inserted and may not be a faithful reproduction of the original printer's mark. It is, however, tolerably certain that this edition came from the press of Fadrique de Basilea (Friedrich Biel): for whom, see Conrad Haebler's Typographie Ibérique du quinzième siècle (La Haye and Leipzig, 1901), pp. 30-32. It is also fairly certain that this Heber copy, whatever its exact date may be, is earlier than the Seville edition of 1501, reprinted (1900) by M. Raymond Foulché-Delbosc in his Bibliotheca Hispanica. Finally, the probability is that the edition which survives in the Heber volume was preceded by another edition of which no trace remains: see M. Foulché-Delbosc's remarkable Observations sur la Célestine in the Revue hispanique (Paris, 1900), vol. vii., pp. 28-80.
[12] The earliest known edition of Amadís de Gaula (Zaragoza, 1508) is believed to exist in an unique copy in the British Museum, press-marked as C. 57. g. 6. But there is reason to think that there was a previous edition which has disappeared.
[13] There are three distinct editions of Lazarillo de Tormes all dated 1554. They were published respectively at Alcalá de Henares, Burgos, and Antwerp, and—so M. Foulché-Delbosc inclines to believe—in the order here given: see his Remarques sur Lazarille de Tormes in the Revue hispanique (Paris, 1900). vol. vii., pp. 81-97. M. Foulché-Delbosc argues with great ingenuity that these three editions of 1554 derive from another edition (printed before February 26, 1554) of which no copy has as yet been found.