From: Cervantes: Bulletin of the Cervantes Society of America 7.1 (1987): 13-43.
Copyright © 1987, The Cervantes Society of America

ARTICLE

Jacinto María Delgado and Cide Hamete Benengeli: A Semi-Classic Recovered and A Bibliographical Labyrinth Explored


HOWARD MANCING

THE RECENT PUBLICATION of a facsimile edition of Jacinto María Delgado's Adiciones a la historia de Don Quixote de la Mancha (Madrid: Grupo Editorial Babilonia, 1984) not only gives Cervantes scholars and partisans a welcome opportunity to read a little-known and neglected work of eighteenth-century literature, but also serves as a reminder of how far we have yet to go in constructing the bibliography and history of cervantismo. In this brief introduction to the subject, I propose to: 1) review the interesting publishing and critical history of Delgado's novel, 2) look at the bibliographical confusion surrounding this and some related works, and 3) examine the role of Cide Hamete Benengeli in the novel.


I

     Jacinto María Delgado first published his Adiciones á la historia del ingenioso hidalgo Don Quixote de la Mancha, en que se prosiguen los sucesos ocurridos a su escudero el famoso Sancho Panza, escritas en arábigo por Cide-Hamete Benengeli, y traducidas al castellano con las memorias de la vida de este por don

13


14 HOWARD MANCING Cervantes

Jacinto María Delgado in Madrid with the Imprenta de Blas Román in 1786. The date is not mentioned on the title page, but the newly published book was announced and summarized in Memorial Literario 9 (July, 1786), 285-86 (see Baig Baños, pp. 354-55). The work has a complicated set of introductory pieces that consists of the following:

This is followed by the 355-page text of the novel of Sancho Panza, divided into fifteen chapters. Finally, there is a short essay entitled “Memorias del esclarecido Cide-Hamete Benengeli, autor celebérrimo de la historia del ingenioso hidalgo Don Quixote de la Mancha. Recogidas por Melique Zulema, Autor igualmente verdadero, que Arabigo.”
     Although the text occasionally displays moments of stylistic excellence and wry humor, and Delgado maintains an appealing intertextual relationship with Cervantes' novel (see section III), this story of Sancho's life after the death of Don Quijote is not very appealing to twentieth-century tastes. The local priest, Pero Pérez, and other friends of the late knight-errant, worried about the health of the former squire and governor, write of their concerns to the Duke and Duchess. The latter respond with an offer to name Sancho the Duke's “Consultor” in order to enjoy more laughs at his expense. Sancho is elaborately trained for his new charge by the local authorities and by a certain Don Aniceto, a genial confidence man who advises Sancho in matters of wardrobe and in the fine art of “pedeografía,” elegance in carriage and gesture. Sancho assumes his new title in a solemn ceremony and takes up his administrative duties. After a while he is named “Barón de Casa-Panza,” and, some days later, dies after overindulging at a banquet. The main purpose in writing the novel was to satirize certain contemporary social customs, particularly in imitation of French culture (see Río y Rico, p. 530).
     Delgado's Adiciones is perhaps the most significant and influential creative work related to Cervantes written in the late eighteenth century, a period of renewed interest in Cervantes that began with


7.1 (1987) Jacinto Mª Delgado and Cide Hamete Benengeli 15

the publication of the monumental editions of Don Quijote by the Real Academia de la Lengua (that included Vicente de los Ríos' important Análisis del Quixote) in 1780 and John Bowle in 1781. Even more significant, however, was the polemical fervor that followed the 1782 publication of Nicholas Masson de Moruilliers' essay on Spain in the Encyclopédie Méthodique in which the French editor rhetorically asked what the world owed to Spain and what Spain had ever done for Europe. Juan Pablo Forner, the leading figure in the polemic, and others used the works of Cervantes, especially Don Quijote, as a primary example of Spain's greatness.1 Delgado's novel and the reactions to it are clearly related to the broader issue of the nation's intellectual and artistic integrity. In the supposed “Censura” to the novel, “Celestino Antero” cites and comments on Delgado's letter of transmission in which the matter of national pride is clearly addressed:

     Dice vmd. en el tercer Capítulo de su carta de remision esta clausula: Es cierto que el caracter de Don Quixote no fue otro, ni su oficio de Caballero andante se reduxo á mas que á enderezar tuertos y vengar agravios . . . .  Del mismo modo sus Adiciones quieren enderezar algunas ridiculeces que se han introducido insensiblemente, de que á la nacion le resulta una cierta burla, que nos hacen los extrangeros, agravios que pueden cortarse con las Adiciones.
     ¡Quántas y quántas veces hemos tocado este punto, y quántas y quántas veces hemos visto con qué justo motivo las naciones extrangeras, y aún nuestros mismos nacionales se burlan de cierto gremio de calaveras, hombres que se han tomado por empeño hacerse ridículos por autoridad propia, sin querer saber, que lo que hacen causa una general burla, que se pone por universal á la Nacion, y se incluyen en el dicho aún los que están opuestos al hecho! (Italics in the original.)

     A sensational contemporary reaction to the Adiciones2 is the attack entitled “apología irónica de las Adiciones á la historia de Don Quixote” by Pedro Centeno writing under the pseudonym of D. Policarpo Chinchilla Galiano in his periodical El Apologista universal

     1 For a good introduction to the centrality of Cervantes in the Spanish reaction to Masson's essay —although with no reference to Delgado— see Smith.
     2 Baig Baños notes (p. 355) that earlier praise for the Adiciones (probably a brief laudatory review) was published in the Diario curioso, erudito, económico y comercial. I have not seen this item.


16 HOWARD MANCING Cervantes

(no. 2, 17-32),3 an essay which Baig Baños has honored by calling it “en realidad, el primer artículo cervantino publicado en la prensa madrileña” (p. 357). Ridiculing the novel, Centeno affirms that “este libro era sin duda aquel con que jugaban los diablos en la famosa vision de Altisidora, del que dixo uno de ellos que él no lo podia hacer peor” (p. 21). He concludes with this exhortation to his readers:

Asi, pues, Clientes amados míos, y vosotros verdaderos amantes de la Patria, indagad, averiguad y escudriñad, por todas las vias imaginables y posibles, el nombre, patria, padres, estudios, empleos ú oficio de nuestro inmortal Autor D. Jacinto Maria Delgado, y hallado que sea todo esto, hacedlo estampar en una panza de oveja con caractéres de á palmo, y colocadlo, con las debidas ceremonias, en el salon de la Academia Argamasillesca . . . (p. 31).

It is probably this final comment that has led some to suppose that the name Jacinto María Delgado is a pseudonym. Although this possibility cannot be rejected definitively it seems more probable that Delgado was an obscure figure who made only a brief excursion into the world of letters; at any rate, I will assume that Delgado did exist and that he was the author of the Adiciones.
     In response to Centeno's criticism and to that of an anonymous “Carta del Duende de medida mayor”4 an anonymous pamphlet was published: “Justa repulsa á la apologia irónica-satírica, que en el num. II hizo el señor don Policarpo de Chinchilla, por el Libro Adiciones á la Historia del ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quixote de la Mancha. Publícase para vindicación del Adicionador, y diversion del Duende aficionado al Señor Chinchilla (alias) El Apologista Universal” (n. p.: n. p., n. d.; but obviously Madrid, 1786).5 The author of this 20-page essay claims that he is not “el que muchos juzgan Autor de las Adiciones al Quixote, ni el que públicamente

     3 Although the issues of the Apologista (Madrid: Imprenta Real) are not dated, the sixteen numbers of this satiric review, one of several spawned in the wake of the successful El Censor (1781-87), were published between June, 1786, and January, 1788. See Aguilar Piñal, La prensa española, p. 32.
     4 This item is presumably lost, since no literary critic, historian or bibliographer I have read has seen it.
     5 Both the “Apología irónica'' and the “Justa repulsa” are also cited in Memorial Literario 10 (Sept., 1786), 70-71, and 10 (Oct., 1786) 215, respectively (see Baig Baños, pp. 356-57). No bibliography or catalogue I [p. 17] have consulted identifies a location for the “Justa repulsa.” The only extant copy I have discovered is bound, together with a copy of Centeno's “Apología irónica,” at the end of a copy of the 1786 edition of the Adiciones in the Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid (ref.: R-14626). This copy bears the bookplate of C. A. de la Barrera and identifies, presumably in La Barrera's hand, Centeno as the Apologista Universal; there is no indication in the card catalogue that these materials are appended to Delgado's text.


7.1 (1987) Jacinto Mª Delgado and Cide Hamete Benengeli 17

está declarado Traductor de ellas; uno y otro lo afirmo sanamente, y en caso necesario, estoy pronto a jurarlo” (p. 1). Rather, he claims, he is merely a friend of the man who wrote the Adiciones and who, offended by the piece in the Apologista universal, wrote to the author of the novel urging him to reply in his own defense. The latter, he says, wrote back a letter (quoted at length) declining the invitation to respond to the unjust attack. The introductory section of the essay is brought to a close with the following statement:

Mas dejando á parte fruslerias, no puedo negar, que siento ver maltratado al Adicionador, porque es mi Amigo, y si Amicus est alter ego, y amicorum omnia communia, hagome el Adicionador, apropiome sus Adiciones como si fuesen mias, y doy principio á su defensa . . . (pp. 6-7).

Although it is possible that the author of this essay is literally a friend of Delgado's, it seems more likely that it is Delgado himself, engaging in more of the ludic masquerading that characterizes much of the writing of the epoch. It is also worth noting that at one point the author of this pamphlet reveals the identity of his critic: “Mucho nos hemos distraído del grano, Señor Chinchilla, no es la culpa mia ciertamente, sino el haber que limpiarle de tanta paja de centeno” (p. 14; italics mine).6
     The 1786 edition of the Adiciones was the only one published in the eighteenth century,7 but two editions were published in the mid-nineteenth century. The first was in México by the Imprenta

     6 It is probable that specialists more familiar than I with eighteenth-century literature might well be able to decipher other allusions to the identity of some of the writers involved in these and other related texts that will be discussed below. It should be noted also that Centeno took a brief jab at the author of the “Justa repulsa” in a later article in the Apologista (no. 6, pp. 114-15).
     7 Permission to publish a second edition in 1787 was denied by the censors (Aguilar Piñal, “Cervantes,” p. 159, n. 19). A 1770 date for the first edition that has occasionally been proposed is simply an error based on an educated guess that can be traced at least back to Ticknor, who speculates [p. 18] that the Adiciones was published “apparently soon after” another work dated 1767 (p. 516). Probably relying on Ticknor, Cejador lists the date of the first edition as 1770? (p. 176). Brown lists the first edition under the year 1770, citing the catalogues of the British Museum, the Boston public Library, and the Hispanic Society as his sources (p. 48, n. 3). Rogers cites the date as 1770, rejecting Ford and Lansing's proposed 1786 (p. 145), even though he and Lapuente previously had the date correct (p. 86). Río y Rico states with no explanation that the first edition was published about 1784-85 (p. 530).


18 HOWARD MANCING Cervantes

del ciudadano Santiago Pérez in 1842.8 The prefatory material consists only of Delgado's dedication and prologue, which are followed by the text of the novel and the appendix on the life of Cide Hamete Benengeli. This is the first illustrated edition, with seventeen full-page engravings, some signed by Ortega and others by Lucio. It is also the rarest edition of the novel and the one printed on the highest quality paper (“de Maguay”).9 The second nineteenth-century edition was published with the reduced title Adiciones a la historia del ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha, continuación de la vida de Sancho Panza, with no reference anywhere to Delgado (Madrid: Mellado, 1845). This time all of the prefatory material is eliminated, leaving only the novel and the “Memorias.” There are 24 engravings (six full-page) by Oliveros.10 Although Cejador lists a Madrid edition of 1835 (p. 464) and Palau lists another in Madrid, about 1866, by Blas Román (2nd ed.: 7, 154), these seem to be errors based on typographical or copying mistakes

     8 Valle and Romero (p. 9) energetically insist that the correct date for this edition is 1824. However, they appear neither to have actually seen the book (relying instead on the entry in the catalogue of José María Agreda y Sánchez's library, in which I presume there is a typographical error) nor to be familiar with any reference to the novel other than that in Grismer.
     9 This is the one edition of the novel I have not seen. I am pleased to recognize the generous cooperation and assistance of Dian Fox of Columbia University who examined the copy in the Rare Book room of the University library for me.
     10 Some of the Oliveros engravings are quite clearly based on those of the 1842 Mexican edition (see the end of section III of this essay). Givanel states that the 1842 Mexican illustrations “no pueden recomendarse en manera alguna, ya que parecen ser obra de un principiante” (2, 345). Based on the reproductions of some examples of the 1842 edition that I have seen, and in the opinion of Fox who has compared them all, Givanel's comment applies more readily to Oliveros' work. It is quite possible that the 1845 Mellado edition was a hurried job in imitation of the higher quality (and perhaps successful, at least in the Madrid publisher's estimation) 1842 edition, and was released in order to help promote sales of a re-issue of Mellado' s two-volume Don Quijote of the previous year.


7.1 (1987) Jacinto Mª Delgado and Cide Hamete Benengeli 19

(1835 for 1845 and 1866 for 1786). There was, in addition, a French translation by the Countess of Bassanville: Suite de la vie de Sancho Pança. Ce qu'il advint après la mort de l'illustre Don Quichotte (Paris: Desserts, 1851).11
     Nineteenth-century literary critics did not completely ignore the Adiciones. In 1870 Ramón León Máinez, with no explanation of how he came across the novel, reference to the 1842 or 1845 editions, or reason for writing about an 84-year old book, published a scathing review of Delgado's novel. His conclusion and summary is as follows:

. . . [C]oncluimos diciendo que la imitacion de que hemos hablado en el presente escrito cervántico, bajo todos los puntos de vista que se la considere, es detestable, más que detestable, detestabilísima; pero bajo el punto de vista literario apreciada, es rematadamente infeliz, incorrecta, desmazalada, diabólica, piramidalmente mala, pobre en la invencion, más pobre en el lenguaje, más pobre aún en el estilo, y merecedora, en una palabra, de ser quemada á fuego lento, y por una eternidad imperdurable, en los hornos, no apagados, sino encendidos, muy encendiditos, de los profundos infiernos del olvido y del silencio.
     Para el alma del bueno del imitador, para el espíritu del atrevido Sr. D. Jacinto María Delgado, pidamos una sola cosa: Paz, paz eterna!!!
     Aun nos resta algo de compasion!12

     Two years later León Máinez published an excerpt of a letter sent to him by Cayetano Alberto de la Barrera, which includes the following comments:

En el singular libro Adiciones . . . , he creído yo traslucir alusiones, que con dificultad pudieron ya explicarse ni descifrarse, á personas de la época de su composicion. Satirízanse en él picantemente las ridículas modas de aquel tiempo, la manía genealógica, la aficion á curiosidades arqueológicas y muchas viciosas ó risibles costumbres (“Noticias varias,” p. 103).

La Barrera goes on to summarize the attacks by Centeno and the author of the “Carta del Duende” and the response in the “Justa

     11 There is no date on the title page, but the date of 1851 assigned by the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris has been generally accepted: see Givanel (2, 417). 1 have not seen this translation.
     12 “Cervantes. Artículo crítico,” p. [2]. Ford and Lansing at first mistakenly attribute this essay, which they obviously did not see, to Delgado (p. 123), and then later label and attribute it correctly (p. 175).


20 HOWARD MANCING Cervantes

repulsa,” with which León Máinez states that he was not familiar when he wrote his essay. Ticknor (p. 516, n. 10), Rius (2, 277), and Cotarelo (p. 83) also make brief, rather flippant and sarcastic statements about the novel's quality.
     As part of the 1905 third centennial celebration of the publication of the first part of Don Quijote a new edition of the Adiciones was released in Barcelona by the Casa Editorial Maucci and simultaneously in Buenos Aires by the related Maucci Hermanos. It is worth quoting the editor's preface to the reader:

Hace algunos días, entretenidos en dar un vistazo á libros viejos, cayó en nuestras manos uno antiquísimo y rebosante de interés, del cual quedarán por el mundo contadísimos ejemplares, y en cuya portada se lee: Adiciones . . . .
     Este libro fué impreso allá por los años 1775 á 80.
     Como todo to que se refiere á la portentosa obra de Cervantes llama en estos momentos tan poderosamente la atención, y como , por otra parte, las Adiciones dichas no merecen, ni con mucho, el olvido de los que al estudio de las buenas letras se dedican, hemos considerado oportuno publicar la presente edición en la seguridad de servir de este modo á las letras patrias.
     No es nuestro intento detenernos en hacer un prólogo para explicarle al lector bellezas que con volver la hoja puede empezar á saborear á su antojo; únicamente queríamos hacer constar que al publicar una nueva edición de este curiosísimo é interesante libro, no nos guía otro propósito que el de no dejar en el olvido en estos momentos, tan sabrosas é interesantes Adiciones (pp. v-vi).

     As if one twentieth-century revival were not enough, the new facsimile edition has again placed Delgado's novel at the disposal of interested readers. The new editors announce that this text initiates a series designed to “difundir y dar a conocer los libros antiguos a precios moderados.” They cite Palau's bibliographical summary of editions (1786, 1842, 1845, the erroneous 1866, and 1905) but give no indication of having seen any other than the first edition, and do not comment on the similar aims of their edition and that of Maucci in 1905.
     In summary, then, we can list the following editions of Delgado's Adiciones:

  1. Madrid: Blas Román, 1786.
  2. México: Santiago Pérez, 1842.
  3. Madrid: Mellado, 1845.
  4. In French, Paris: Desserts, 1851.
  5. Barcelona and Buenos Aires: Maucci, 1905.
  6. Madrid: Babilonia, 1984.


7.1 (1987) Jacinto Mª Delgado and Cide Hamete Benengeli 21

     The new edition of the novel is to be welcomed, as no scholar writing after the 1905 revival by Maucci whose work I have seen has taken any notice of the book's existence.13 Particularly unfortunate is the complete absence of reference to the Adiciones (or to any of the other works cited later in this essay) in Flores' brief and superficial paragraph on the fortunes of Sancho Panza in eighteenth-century Spain (p. 42), the one study in which such works specifically should be discussed.
     It is ironic that a novel that has rarely received any critical praise in nearly three centuries (its twentieth-century editors present it more as a curiosity than as a work of artistic excellence) and that has been the target of some notable vituperative criticism should have enjoyed a French translation and five Spanish editions, including two modern revivals. As I will suggest in the final section of this essay, there may be some merit in the popularity of the Adiciones. But before looking at the text, it is necessary to enter into a Borgesian bibliographical labyrinth that is almost beyond belief in the supposedly rational world of academia.
     We begin with two simple questions: Who was Jacinto María Delgado? What did he write?


II

     Who was Jacinto María Delgado? The only bit of biographical information I have been able to glean is the following entry in the Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada: “Escritor español que vivió en el siglo XVIII, si bien creen los críticos que este nombre fué un seudónimo. Se sabe que residió en Madrid, y publicó los libros [sic]: Adiciones . . .”

     13 A minor exception is the short, negative comment by the bibliographer Givanel (2, 5). 1 have not seen Manuel Zubieta's newspaper article entitled “Don Quijote y sus deformadores,” partially on the Adiciones, published in 1947, that is cited by Valle and Romero (p. 281). Aguirre, who relies on previous bibliographies (especially that of Rius), cites the Adiciones, together with several of the related works listed below, and provides a brief plot summary, but makes no critical comment (pp. 142-43). The same sort of brief, non-critical mention of the Adiciones and some other works is found in García Soriano and García Morales' very useful section on Spanish imitations of Don Quijote (pp. 90-91). Murillo does not cite the Adiciones in his recent Bibliografía fundamental of Don Quijote; he lists only Pedro Gatell's Moral de Don Quijote (see below) in the section on eighteenth-century criticism (p. 55), and no work treated in this essay in his brief section on the influence of Cervantes' novel on eighteenth-century Spanish writers (pp. 94-95).


22 HOWARD MANCING Cervantes

(17, 1433). Although his novel has been saved from oblivion, Delgado himself has become nothing more than a name.
     What did he write? Here is where we enter into the labyrinth; I will retrace the early steps of my own path. On the assumption that a good place to begin to answer this question would be with a standard Cervantes bibliography, I first consulted Grismer. Here (1, 53), under the heading of “Delgado, Jacinto María (‘Cide Hamete Benengeli’),” we find listed the 1786, 1842, 1845, and 1905 editions of the Adiciones, together with another entered as “DCad 1870, n. 1181,” clearly an error (copied, as we will see later, from Ford and Lansing; see n. 12) for León Máinez's review of the novel discussed in the last section. But then the following entries are listed: —Diálogo entre Don Quijote de la Mancha y Sancho Panza . . . Valencia, 1811. (Full bibliographical entries for this and other works listed here will be provided below.)

     In other words, Delgado published works of fiction and criticism having to do with Don Quijote in both French and Spanish in a long career that extended from 1722 to 1918. Quite an accomplishment. But surely Grismer was careless, including under a single heading various works in which the authors used the Cervantine pseudonym of Cide Hamete Benengeli.14 Better to check a more recent and more authoritative source, so I went next to the Library of Congress' National Union Catalogue: Pre-1956 Imprints.
     In the NUC (138, 71) Delgado is listed only as a pseudonym for Juan Francisco de la Jara y Sánchez de Molina. Under Jara's name (278, 124-25) are listed five editions of the Adiciones (1786, an erroneous 1790,15 1842, 1845, and 1905), together with the following works:

     14 In the second volume of Grismer's bibliography, the Libros and the Moral del mas famoso are listed only under Cide Hamete Benengeli, with no attribution to Delgado or anyone else (2, 73).
     15 According to the NUC the only copy of the supposed 1790 edition is located at the Harvard university library. Staff sources at that library, however, inform me via the interlibrary loan process that there is no edition of the novel with that date at Harvard.


7.1 (1987) Jacinto Mª Delgado and Cide Hamete Benengeli 23

     The problem was hardly solved at this point: all I had learned was that perhaps the long-lived polyglot author involved was named Jara rather than Delgado and that there is some uncertainty as to what books he wrote. Matters were destined to get far worse. I will not attempt to retrace the entire garden of forking paths that eventually led to a set of tentative conclusions about who wrote what, when, and in what languages. In the paragraphs that follow I provide the most accurate description I can of each work and author associated at one time or another with Delgado, together with some comments on their treatment by literary historians, bibliographers and cataloguers.


1. The Suite nouvelle

     It is quite clear that neither Delgado nor any other Spanish author was ever involved in the composition of the following French sequel to Don Quijote written in the early eighteenth century: Suite nouvelle et véritable de l'histoire et des avantures de l'incomparable Don Quichotte de la Manche. Traduite d'un manuscrit espagnol de Cide-Hamet Benengely, son véritable historien. Avec La véritable histoire de Sancho Pansa alcalde de Blandanda, 6 vols. (Paris: C. Le Clerc, 1722-26). Vols. 1-5 present new adventures of the knight and squire, while vol. 6 is devoted to Sancho Panza after his master's death. There was a second edition, also in six volumes, published in Paris by Clousier in 1741.16 The sixth volume was also translated into German: Die Geschichte des Sancho Pansa, vormahligen Stallsmeisters des Don Quichotte; aus dem Franzoesischen uebersezt (Leipzig: Johann Michael Teubner, 1754).
     Lengthy, accurate descriptions of and comments on this genuinely interesting and original work once attributed erroneously

     16 The citation of a 1714 edition by Barbier (p. 583) and Palau (2nd ed.: 3, 425) is erroneous, probably based on a transposition of the last two numbers of the second edition.


24 HOWARD MANCING Cervantes

to Le Sage are provided by Asensio,17 Rius (2, 298-300), Bardon (1, 424-36), and Givanel (1, 229-31, 235-36, 274). Palau never attributed the Suite nouvelle either to Delgado or Jara; but it is inexplicably confused with the Adiciones and attributed to Delgado by Ford and Lansing (p. 123), Grismer (1, 53), Rogers and Lapuente (p. 86), and again independently by Rogers (who persists in stating inaccurately that the Adiciones is “apparently . . . an adaptation of the Suite nouvelle”; p. 145), and Lapuente (p. 142). As noted above, Jara receives the attribution by the Library of Congress.


2. Jacinto María Delgado

     Delgado is probably only the author of the Adiciones and perhaps the “Justa repulsa” discussed in the previous section. Ford and Lansing seem to have been the first to make massive, illogical attributions of works purported to have been written by Cide Hamete Benengeli to Delgado. They attribute the 1786, 1842, 1845, and 1905 editions of the Adiciones, along with the 1722-26 and 1741 editions of the Suite nouvelle, the Moral del más famoso, the “Diálogo,” and León Máinez's review of the Adiciones all to Delgado (p. 123), and later, in another section of their bibliography, also give Delgado credit for the Libros (p. 197). It is obvious that Grismer indiscriminately accepted Ford and Lansing's multiple attributions. As we will see later, Ford and Lansing are also the first to make attributions to Jara.


3. Pedro Centeno

     Centeno did not abandon the quixotic fray with his attack on Delgado. Writing under the pseudonym of Eugenio Habela Patiño, he published El Teniente del Apologista universal, no. 1 (Madrid: D. Antonio Espinosa, 1788), which, after a brief prologue in which the author explains how the Apologista Universal encouraged him to take up his pen in further support of his causes,18 contains the

     17 Asensio' s essay, first published in 1873, was the first to call attention to the Suite nouvelle. It is particularly valuable for its translation of the highly original and interesting prologue to the novel (see note 35), summary of the new adventures of the knight and squire in vols. 1-5, and index of the titles of the eighteen chapters that make up the story of Sancho in vol. 6.
     18 It is highly probable that “Eugenio Habela Patiño” is in fact Centeno. The attribution was made first by Palau (2nd ed.: 3, 376, and 6, 503), and accepted by Rogers and Lapuente (p. 200), and Aguilar Piñal, Bibliografía [p. 25] (p. 368). This attribution is thoroughly consistent with the type of literary disguise we have seen throughout this essay, and I see no reason to question it. The unusual pseudonym has caused problems in posterity: Palau once writes “Habele y Patiño” (2nd ed.: 6, 503), while García Soriano and García Morales deform it twice —“Hatela Patillo” (p . 91) and “Isabela Patiño” (p. 156).


7.1 (1987) Jacinto Mª Delgado and Cide Hamete Benengeli 25

“Primera salida de D. Quixote el Segundo, alias El Escolástico,” a satire on Forner in the guise of a Cervantine imitation. Using the same pseudonym, Centeno published a sequel a year later: Apéndice á la primera salida de Don Quixote el Escolástico (Madrid: D. Antonio Espinosa, 1789).19 The unfortunate Augustinian friar Pedro Centeno (1730-1803), member of the Real Academia de la Historia and relatively talented writer, eventually came into conflict with the Inquisition for his supposed heretical views and spent his last years in anguish and perhaps madness.20


4. Pedro Gatell

     Gatell was Delgado's major rival as the author of imaginative works inspired in Don Quijote in the late eighteenth century. He published as many as four books during the period:

     19 Río y Rico discusses and clarifies the bibliographical confusion surrounding the works of “Habela Patiño” (p. 602).
     20 More biographical information is available on Centeno than on any other author discussed in this essay; see Herr (pp. 187-88), Manrique, and Aguilar Piñal, Bibliografía (p. 385). I have not consulted Miguel de la Pinta Llorente's long, multi-part essay on Centeno's relationship with the Inquisition cited by Aguilar Piñal.


26 HOWARD MANCING Cervantes

     In the unnumbered preliminary pages of La moral de Don Quixote the author claims to have purchased from a pharmacist in La Mancha a manuscript written by Pero Pérez; he reproduces it here, adding; “Yo solo pongo de mi parte la aplicacion de la Moral, escrita por el Cura en su tiempo, á la epoca presente” (p. [5]). In the introduction to La moral del mas famoso, Gatell states that he searched for but never found a manuscript like the priest's on Don Quijote, so he has had to do this work entirely on his own (p. [2]). He defends his previous work and announces that he intends to write the history of Sancho Panza after the death of Don Quijote (p. [13]). Gatell does not identify himself in this work but signs the introduction thus: “B. L. M. de V. / su Capellán sin órdenes / El Autor” (p. [16]). Palau attributes the Moral del mas famoso first to Cide Hamete Benengeli (1st ed.: 1, 200) and then, when grouping several Benengeli-related items together, to Jara (2nd ed.: 7, 155). Ford and Lansing (p. 123) and Grismer (1, 53) attribute it to Delgado.

     21 Givanel doubts that Gatell is the author of this work (2, 22). The initials “D. A. A. P. y G.,” however, speak in favor of this attribution, although they do not provide conclusive proof. Neither do Rius (3, 405) or Grismer (1, 115) list the work under Gatell. See Río y Rico's discussion of authorship (pp. 584-85).
     22 With it Sbarbi also published Alonso Ramírez y Blanco's “Respuestas de Sanchico Panza, á dos cartas que le remitió su padre desde la Insula Barataria; que cónsta por tradicion se custodiaron en el archivo de la Academia Argamasillesca. Primera que publica en honor de la verdad, y de la fama, y familia de los Panzas Ramon Alexo de Zidra” (Alcalá: Isidro López, 1791), pp. 41-66, and the anonymous critique of the “Instrucciones” entitled “Engaña bobos y Saca dinero” (Madrid: Joseph Herrera, 1790), pp. 187-96. The latter was published together with the “Instrucciones,” perhaps, as Rius suggests (3, 405), not to criticize but rather to attract attention to and promote the text.


7.1 (1987) Jacinto Mª Delgado and Cide Hamete Benengeli 27

     In the introductory pages to the first part of the Historia, Gatell states that after writing the two moral books he decided to “escribir un rasgo de su imitacion” (pp. [2-3]). In the prologue to the second part of the Historia the following claim is made:

El autor de la primera parte de esta obrita, hace quatro años que murió, y aunque ofreció concluirla con el segundo tomo, como en su primero verás, en el escrutinio de sus papeles, por mas cuidado que se ha puesto, no se han hallado, ni originales, ni borradores que traten de esto: por este accidente quedó imperfecta la obra, y sin gloria su autor, pues como los adictos á saber, ven solo un primer tomo, la desprecian, aunque el mérito sea sublime, porque asunto que se propone, y no se concluye mal ó bien, poco merece, por esto dispuse (con el fin de que el primer tomo luciese) formar este segundo, siguiendo la idea del primero, dándole conclusion con la muerte de Sancho, como en él previene (pp. [2-3]).

This sequel is generally attributed to Gatell, which seems quite reasonable since the passage quoted above is probably no more than a new and extreme variant on the constant game of authorial disguise.23
     It is worth noting, also, that the author of the second part of the Historia specifically places his text in competition with Delgado's Adiciones:

     A penas, lector mio, te veo satisfecho por tu prudencia de mi verdad, que ya crees, quando oygo que me sales con el reparo de decirme, y á unas adiciones que se venden impresas del célebre Cide Hamete Benengeli que son la mayor parte de la vida de Sancho Panza (quando quiera favorecerte con mi sufrimiento en leer to que dispares en este segundo tomo), ¿en qué grado quieres que las ponga? á eso repondo, que la idea del primer tomo es séria, y su formacion va coordinada, y separada totalmente de la ficcion burlesca . . . (pp. [4-5]).

     He then goes on to warn the reader that he will hear “á los críticos modernos decir (que sí dirán), que es atrevimiento, á vista de los primeros originales, tener valor para quererlos imitar” (pp. [9-10]) and defends his new version of Sancho and other characters in anticipation of the kind of criticism leveled at Delgado's novel.

     23 Cotarelo is the most emphatic in taking the claim of new authorship literally; see pp. 55, n. 3; 83-84; and 95, n. 1. See Río y Rico's discussion of the difficulty involved in the question of attribution of Gatell's works in general and the second part of the Historia in particular: p. 586.


28 HOWARD MANCING Cervantes

     The major bibliographical inconsistency involving the Historia is Palau's double attribution. The bookseller / bibliographer correctly lists the work under Gatell (1st ed.: 3, 323; 2nd ed.: 6, 139) but simultaneously appears to consider a work entitled Historia de Sancho Panza, Madrid, 1793-98, 2 parts (obviously Gatell's text) as a Spanish translation of the Suite nouvelle (1st ed.: 4, 51; 2nd ed.: 6, 618). The confusion may be due, at least in part, to the similarity with the title of the Countess of Bassanville's French translation of the Adiciones: Suite de la vie de Sancho Pança.
     Delgado has at least had his sequel to Don Quijote published twice in the twentieth century, but Gatell has not enjoyed such good fortune. Gatell has, however, been praised as the sole author of his time who displayed some affection for Sancho Panza (by Romero Flores, pp. 85-86, n. 1), and has been cited as the best example of how eighteenth-century writers conceived of Don Quijote as a moral work (Smith, p. 1035). Aguilar Piñal does not discuss Gatell's Historia but does affirm that La moral del mas famoso and Delgado's Adiciones are “las dos principales continuaciones del Quijote que se publican en el siglo XVIII” (“Cervantes,” p. 159).


5. The “Diálogo entre Don Quijote . . . y Sancho Panza”

     The 12-page pamphlet entitled “Diálogo entre Don Quijote de la Mancha y Sancho Panza su escudero, escrito en lengua árabe por Cide Amete Benengeli, testigo presencial, y traducido al español por D. E. R. H.” (Valencia: José Tomás Nebot, 1811) is attributed to Delgado only by Ford and Lansing (p. 123) and Grismer (1, 53), the latter presumably accepting the attribution of the former. I can see no reason for making such an attribution. Authors who signed works with initials, a practice (as we have already seen) much in vogue in the eighteenth century, tended to at least hint of their identity through these initials. Since “D. E. R. H.” hardly points to Jacinto María Delgado, and since this is the only work under consideration that was published in Valencia rather than in Madrid, the Cide Hamete Benengeli authorship ploy alone hardly provides grounds for making any attribution at all. There appears to be no way to identify the author of this work.


6. Juan Francisco de la Jara y Sánchez de Molina

     One might expect some difficulty in identifying eighteenth-century writers like Delgado or Gatell, but surely it should not be so hard to learn something about a twentieth-century author like Jara.


7.1 (1987) Jacinto Mª Delgado and Cide Hamete Benengeli 29

But such is not the case: I have been unable to locate the slightest allusion to Jara in any encyclopedia, dictionary of literature, or other reference work. Jara is clearly not the author of the Suite nouvelle, the Adiciones or the Moral de Don Quixote. I had thought for a while that Jara might be a pseudonym, perhaps for Luis Esteso (see below), but there is sufficient evidence for us to accept his existence as the author of the following works:

     The prologue to the reader of “Honremos” is signed only “Hamete,” but on the back cover there is an announcement that the “Biblioteca Cervántica de Hamete-Abén-Xaráh, el Beturaní,” that includes not only this 22-page pamphlet but also a two-volume edition of Don Quijote (clearly the Estudio), can be purchased in the Librería de San Martín and at the home of D. Juan Francisco de la Jara (presumably “Xaráh” is a phonetic approximation of “Jara”). Contemporary bibliographical references confirm the authorship of Jara.24
     The Estudio is Jara's edition of Cervantes' novel, in which the editor attempts in his introductory material and notes to prove that

     24 The “Honremos” is attributed to Jara in the “Bibliografia” sections of both the BRAE (4, 547) and the RFE (5, 105).


30 HOWARD MANCING Cervantes

the geography of the novel is that of the southernmost part of La Mancha between the Guadiana and Guadalquivir rivers known as Beturia. Jara, who signs the introductory material with his full name, claims —in a fashion much like what we have seen with the eighteenth-century authors above— to be a friend of “Hamete” who will help the latter reveal the truth about Cervantes' novel (1, 9).25
     The Libros consists first of a brief fictional account of how the reading of Tablante and Orlando was what finally led Alonso Quijano to become Don Quijote, and then of a prose version of these two works. There is no reference to Jara or to his obsession Beturia in the book, and it is quite possible that Jara is not the author.26 But since this work is most often attributed to Jara, it seems to be the best assumption to include it here.
     It would be appropriately ironic if Jara, the prolific author listed in the NUC and other sources, were merely a pseudonym, but, as was the case earlier with Delgado, the most logical assumption is that he did exist and was the author of the books listed above. It is obviously the use of the names Hamete Aben Xaráh and Cide Hamete Benengeli that has led superficial literary historians to associate these works with others from the eighteenth century that also include the name of Cervantes' fictional chronicler. The earliest incidence of this confusion that I can locate is in the 1931 bibliography of Ford and Lansing. In addition to their omnibus attribution to Delgado cited above, they attribute the “Honremos” and the Estudio to Jara, not under listings in his name but identifying him as the author behind the pseudonym of Hamete Aben Xarah (pp. 171, 210). Then in the 1942 dictionary of pseudonyms by Ponce de León and Zamora, both Cide Hamete Benengeli, in the Adiciones, and Hamete-Aben-Xarah el Beturani, in the Estudio, are identified as Jara (pp. 28, 50). This gross error of attributing to Jara works published 130 years apart is repeated by the normally meticulous

     25 The Estudio is listed in the RFE as anonymous (3, 455) and again later as the work of Jara (4, 99). Later still, in a brief review of the work in the “Notas bibliográficas” section of the RFE, it is stated that Jara is not Hamete Aben Xarah Beturani, but, since the book is so fantastic that it deserves no comment, the matter of authorship “en realidad, no tiene demasiada importancia” (4, 405). It receives no authorial attribution in the BRAE (4, 547).
     26 The Libros is attributed only to Cide Hamete Benengeli in RFE (6, 266). See the comments below under Esteso.



7.1 (1987) Jacinto Mª Delgado and Cide Hamete Benengeli 31

Palau in the second edition of the Manual del librero.27 But perhaps the most confusing set of errors and impossible attributions involving Jara is to be found in the dictionary of pseudonyms by Rogers and Lapuente. By misreading both Beltrán (see Beltrán, pp. 112, 148-49) and Palau (see Palau, 2nd ed.: 5, 183, and 7, 155), Rogers and Lapuente attribute: 1) the Suite nouvelle to Cide Hamete Benengeli: Jacinto María Delgado, 2) the Libros to “este autor” (which has to be read as a reference to Benengeli) in collaboration with Luis Esteso, and 3) the Adiciones to Jara and Esteso in collaboration (p. 86).28


7. Luis Esteso y López de Haro

     Esteso, a minor but easily identifiable humorist, dramatist and novelist of the early twentieth century (1879-1928),29 probably never published any Cervantine works in collaboration with Jara.30 Among his many books, the following have some relevance for this essay:

     27 Palau senior, rather than his sons who completed the second edition after their father's death in 1954, must bear the responsibility. He directed the operation of the first eight volumes of the work, and vol. 4 (1951) contains the cross reference from Delgado to Jara, while vol. 7 (1954) includes the comprehensive listings under Jara's name.
     28 Both Rogers (p. 145) and Lapuente (p. 142) later repeat the same mistakes, making it clear that they neither saw the works in question nor consulted all the requisite bibliographical sources.
     29 Like Delgado, Esteso is cited briefly in the Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada: 22, 909; and Apéndice: 4, 1354. In his Memorias Palau recalls a visit with the popular humorist in 1921 in a brief paragraph (p. 399).
     30 See Palau's confusing double —but not joint— attribution cited in the previous paragraph.


32 HOWARD MANCING Cervantes

     Esteso was a shameless self-promoter who, for example, advertised himself on the cover of Novelas picarescas as “Rival de Azorín” and announced that “Esta obra es la más grande que se ha pergeñado en castellano después de ‘El Quijote’, ‘El Nieto de Don Quijote’ y ‘Libros que enloquecieron á Don Quijote’.” The opening words of the “Elogio de Luis Esteso, por el autor de este libro” of the Novelas picarescas are the following; “Luis Esteso es el literato más hondo, más chispeante y más genial de España, en este precioso siglo” (p . 7). Throughout his works Esteso boasts of his own excellence and cites newspaper articles, reviews and books that praise his publications.
     The praise of the Libros cited in the last paragraph suggests the possibility that Esteso may be the author of that book since he rarely compliments the work of anyone but himself, and especially since he is listed as author or editor of nine of the nineteen books published in the Biblioteca de Autores Célebres series (Novelas picarescas, pp. [3-4]). But since he never fails to identify himself in his other works I have seen, since the lists of his books published that are regularly included in his works never contain the title of the Libros, and since the tone of this book is somewhat erudite and considerably more reserved than anything of Esteso's that I have consulted, it seems unlikely that he is the author of this work.31 Esteso may have been a friend of Jara's (although the latter's name is not among the many contemporary authors cited in the Nuevo Viaje) but I can find no evidence that they ever collaborated on any Cervantine publication, as was suggested by Rogers and Lapuente.

     31 Esteso is listed as author by Beltrán (pp. 148-49). The copy of the book that I have seen was obtained on interlibrary loan from the University of Illinois and is catalogued under the name of Luis Esteso. In the list of Esteso's publications in the Enciclopedia Ilustrada Universal (Apéndice: 4, 1354) the Libros is not included.


7.1 (1987) Jacinto Mª Delgado and Cide Hamete Benengeli 33

8. Leonardo Castellani

     Finally, in an attempt to bring the speed and accuracy of modern technology to bear on the problem, I conducted a series of computerized searches involving many of the authors and works cited above. Much to my surprise I found that the author of the Libros was identified (at least at the library of California State University at Los Angeles) not as Jara, Jara and Esteso, or Delgado, but Leonardo Castellani (1899- ), an Argentine Jesuit priest who also wrote several creative works. Among the latter there is one particularly interesting title: El nuevo gobierno de Sancho; traducción directa del arábigo por Jerónimo del Rey (Buenos Aires: El Ateneo, 1942). There is a second edition, augmented: Buenos Aires: Penca, 1944.32 Thereis no reason to believe that Castellani is in any way involved with any work cited previously.
     It would be tempting at this point to continue with the Borges-inspired imagery of the labyrinth and perhaps to add that of the infinite library or invoke the name of the enigmatic Pierre Menard. But it is time to put Borgesian play aside and affirm that the evidence presented in this essay suggests some sobering conclusions. This brief, introductory survey reveals only too clearly that Cervantes has not always been served well by literary history. There is no excuse for the existence of many of the faulty, superficial, inconsistent, and patently absurd bibliographical descriptions, authorial attributions, and critical silences we have just observed. There is more need than ever for authoritative, descriptive bibliographies and catalogues, both of the works of Cervantes and of other authors associated with him. There is no sufficiently detailed, accurate history of cervantismo in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries.33 Texts, such as the new edition of the Adiciones, of the works of writers like Centeno, Gatell,

     32 See the description of this political satire by Uribe-Echevarría, pp. 83-85.
     33 Drake has stated that “The one serious gap in Quixote criticism is the time-span 1790-1895” (p. 120). He is essentially correct, although the evidence adduced in this essay suggests that the pre-1790 period is not, nearly as well covered by Cherchi (who never mentions Delgado, Centeno, Gatell, or others cited above) as Drake assumes. Rather, as Meregalli states, while there exists at least adequate coverage of Cervantine studies in eighteenth-century England, France, Germany, Italy, and Holland, the same is by no means true of Spain (pp. 187-88).


34 HOWARD MANCING Cervantes

and many others not cited in this study should be made available. Perhaps some publisher should undertake the publication of a series of Cervantine texts (sequels, imitations, parodies, commentaries, and so forth) through the ages. Finally, and above all, we have the right to expect, and should be provided with, modern literary history and criticism that avoids gross and elementary errors of commission and omission such as those that have been pointed out and commented on throughout this essay.
     The following statement by José María Asensio might serve as a fitting conclusion to this study:

Tarea es delicadísima y necesaria, no menos que meritoria, la de procurar desvanecer las nieblas que obscurecen la verdad de los hechos en muchos puntos de nuestra historia literaria . . . .  Preciso es tener siempre muy en cuenta el principio de que un error no por ser antiguo es más respetable, ni deja de ser tan falso como funesto, porque to repitan célebres escritores (p. 199).


III

     Cervantes' Cide Hamete Benengeli may be the most prodigious narrator in the history of prose fiction. He is the prototype for self-conscious and unreliable narrators from Tristram Shandy to the present day. The recurring use of his name in the works discussed above, as well as in many others from the seventeenth century to the present, is an implicit expression of admiration for and appreciation of Cervantes' skill and originality in using the age-old device of the pseudo-chronicler. It is interesting, though, that while Cide Hamete Benengeli was often imitated by novelistic practitioners (albeit normally in a mechanical and unoriginal fashion), he was seldom discussed and never really analyzed until more recent times. Symptomatic of this tendency is the fact that while the novelistic contents of Delgado's Adiciones —the episodes that make up the life of Sancho Panza after the death of Don Quijote— are summarized and discussed at some length, not a single critic or bibliographer of the novel has ever commented on the role of the narrator in the text. Furthermore, the most original and amusing aspect of Delgado's text, the life of Cide Hamete Benengeli that is appended to the story of Sancho, is totally ignored except for Rius' brief dismissal of these “Memorias” as “tan insulsas como lo demás” (2, 277).
     Cide Hamete's presence is constant in the Adiciones, even to a greater extent than in Don Quijote. The opening words of the text are:


7.1 (1987) Jacinto Mª Delgado and Cide Hamete Benengeli 35

     Descolgó su bien cortada pluma el prudentísimo Cide-Hamete Benengeli, (porque le pareció no tenerla ociosa, y colgada segun la dexó en el Capítulo LXXIV de su ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha) para seguir la historia de su Escudero Sancho Panza, lustre y blason de su Patria, y digno por sus buenos servicios y famosos hechos, de que no quedase al olvido este segundo Heroe, de cuyo calibre, como de el de su Señor, se hallan muy pocos en el dilatado ámbito de la tierra: no quiero decir que en todas no se halle abundante número de Quixotes y Sanchos, que el pensarlo sería mucho agravio; sino que aquel calibre de valor en el uno, y entendimiento en el otro, con dificultad se hallarán.
     Empezando á escribir los sucesos de este Escudero, inseparable del valeroso Don Quixote, dice el veracísimo Benengeli asi: . . . (pp. 1-3).

     Phrases like “dice Benengeli que” or “dice la historia que,” and several variants referring to the author and/or his text, appear well over fifty times in the relatively short novel (I would estimate that it is just over 40,000 words long, only about one-tenth the length of Cervantes' novel). Recalling the clever and multifaceted activities of Cide Hamete in Don Quijote, there are items when Delgado's version of the Moorish historian:

     Delgado's Benengeli is a frequent philosopher, interrupting his narrative text with digressive commentary, usually in the form of an apostrophe directed to Sancho on the theme of fortune. The opening paragraph of Chapter II exemplifies this tendency:


36 HOWARD MANCING Cervantes

Valgate tu poder, fortuna, dice Benengeli, pues quando tú quieres todo to allanas: ayer estaba Sancho desvalído, y ya hoy es, quando menos, Consultor de un Duque: ya lo instruye en política un Cura Párroco: ya lo quiere poner culto y civil un caballero franco: quando á tí se te antoja, todo lo facilitas: ¡quién supiera de tí quien te hace fuerza! Ruegote, Sancho, que aproveches el tiempo que te sea favorable, y mira que si este se te huye, no pienses que lo hallarás despues; porque tiempo que una vez se vá, nunca vuelve, y el de la fortuna huye quando menos se espera (pp. 50-51; see also pp. 17, 118, 168, 276).

Such passages reflect not only an ironic textual self-consciousness and provide a comic emphasis, but they also underscore the didactic and satiric neoclassic social message.
     At one point in the text Pero Pérez asks Sansón Carrasco how it is that Sancho can at times display a wisdom and intelligence that is far beyond the capabilities of an uneducated rustic. Benengeli notes that he has often wondered the same thing, and that he asked this very question of the “gran Físico de Tremecen Abdala Benanzel, Moro instruidísimo” (p. 30). Benanzel responded with a letter explaining this anomaly that Benengeli reproduces in its entirety (pp. 30-39). This multiplication of wise Moorish authorities (that will continue with the “Memorias” on the life of Benengeli by the Moor Melique Zulema) tends to demythologize and humanize Cide Hamete Benengeli, as well as playfully increase the levels of textual narration.
     One of the attractive features of Delgado's novel is his intertextual reliance on Cervantes' original work. Incidents and characters from Don Quijote are recalled with such frequency that the reader is invited to feel comfortable in recognizing the authentic world created by Cervantes. This lends relative authority to Delgado's text and implies a continuity in both social and human terms. Life goes on in the village of La Mancha, not only for Sancho Panza and his family, but also for the rest of the world.
     In a letter to her husband, Teresa Panza recounts some local occurrences, including one involving the barber and Don Quijote's niece:

Maese Nicolás ha vendido el Potrillo fiado, y ahora ha tenido que sentir con la sobrina del amo la Antonia Quixano, sobre una bacía que dice se llevo de su casa, y la piden para no sé quien, y ha venido justicia de no sé donde, y está que toma el Cielo con las manos, y no quiere que se diga, llora como una Magdalena por la tal bacía, y se ha puesto mala (pp. 250-51).


7.1 (1987) Jacinto Mª Delgado and Cide Hamete Benengeli 37

The following chapter (XI) is totally digressive: Benengeli leaves the events in the Duke's castle in order to relate those involving Antonia's donation of her uncle's armor to the Academia de la Argamasilla, the dispute between Antonia and Maese Nicolás over possession of the barber's basin /Mambrino's helmet, and the fire that destroyed the Academy building (pp. 256-75). It is one of the best chapters in the novel.34 Equally good comic, satiric passages are those in which Benengeli explains in a marginal note how Sansón Carrasco can be so perceptive at some times and so credulous at others (pp. 192-93), and comments on why he does not devote as much attention to the coat-of-arms of Maese Nicolás as he had earlier with Sancho's (pp. 341-43).
     Just as there is a great deal of attention devoted to historian-translator-editor relationships in Don Quijote, Delgado occasionally enters into the text in his guise as translator-editor. On half a dozen occasions Delgado records that authors other than Cide Hamete have made statements relevant to the matters at hand (see, for example, pp. 54, 180, 257, 310). Perhaps the most comic of these involves the horse Sansón rode when he accompanied Sancho to the Duke's palace, in which the fate of Rocinante is also revealed:

aunque hay autor que afirma que el que llevó fue rocinante, que se vendió por la sobrina de Don Quixote, y compró para este caso en precio tan corto como su andadura; pero otro lo contradice, asegurando positivamente haber muerto al mes y dos dias del fallecimiento de Don Quixote de un hartazo de cebada, que se dió en el granero uno de los dias que se hacia el inventario, y no pudo digerir por mas que le ayudó Maese Nicolás (p. 116).

     On one occasion Delgado discusses Benengeli' s interest in eating utensils and informs us that “hay escritor extrangero que puso su nombre en cifra en una obra utilísima que tituló en su idioma: ‘Uso del tenedor con cuchillo, y sin él, para el lucimiento de todo hombre de Corte’” (pp. 165-66). On another, the meticulous translator admits that he does not know how to translate the arabic word borceguíes, offering botas, botines, or polainas as possibilities (pp. 183-84). Finally, he notes that once when Cide Hamete was pausing to

     34 The prominence given by Delgado here to this Academy may help explain Centeno's satiric reference to it in his criticism of the Adiciones (cited in the first section of this essay).


38 HOWARD MANCING Cervantes

contemplate the phrasing of a difficult passage, he must have sharpened his pen, for his manuscript continues “con letra mas menudita y algo carrasposa” (p. 337).
     I do not mean to imply that Cide Hamete is more important or more prominent than Sancho in the Adiciones, for such is not the case. What I do believe, however, is that while the story of Sancho's life in his final days is rather mediocre and uninspired, Delgado manages, primarily by his use of the figure of Cide Hamete Benengeli, to make the text humorous and interesting, and worthy of appreciation by modern students of narration. I assume that because Delgado was so fond of his narrator, and perhaps realizing consciously that he had used this device with some degree of originality and talent, that he appended to the novel the etiological “Memorias del esclarecido Cide-Hamete Benengeli, autor celebérrimo de la historia del ingenioso Don Quixote de la Mancha. Recogidas por Melique Zulema, Autor igualmente verdadero, que Arabigo” (p. 356).
     Melique Zulema's “Memorias” (pp. 356-74) are divided into sixteen numbered paragraphs and can be summarized as follows:

  1. Cide Hamete Benengeli was born in the African city of Mascara; his father, Muley Benengeli, was a tailor, and his mother, Fatima Aben-Amar, a professional mourner and janitress at the local Mosque.
  2. The boy studied his father's trade, but was always inclined to books and was instructed by his uncle Benacél.
  3. Some Arabic authors claim that the young Benengeli wrote a history of Calaínos, but this is probably not true.
  4. He earned the title of Cide, or Captain, perhaps in recognition of his excellent services as the Bey's tailor.
  5. He is described as average in stature, noteworthy perhaps only for the ravages of small-pox on his face, his somewhat vacant gaze, some missing teeth, and a limp in his left leg.
  6. He was fond of practical jokes and planned those involving Altisidora, part of the procession of enchanters, and the bag of cats when Don Quijote was at the Duke's residence.
  7. Benengeli was an excellent tailor, and gave classes of instruction in the trade to poor young women.
  8. At the Duke's palace he supervised the making of the costumes involved in the deceptions staged during Don Quijote's visit.
  9. Benengeli was taken captive by a Genoese soldier, subjected to various humiliations (but he refused to eat donkey meat when it was served to him), and eventually sold to a Spanish captain, who made him his cook.


7.1 (1987) Jacinto Mª Delgado and Cide Hamete Benengeli 39

  1. The captain lived several years in Aragón, where Cide Hamete wrote the first part of the history of Don Quijote; when the captain visited his relatives the Duke and Duchess, the latter were so taken by Benengeli that they insisted on buying him, to which the captain reluctantly assented; Benengeli thus became the Duke's chef and was given time off by the Majordomo to continue writing the history of Don Quijote.
  2. He was an excellent chef, specializing in dishes such as alcuzcuz, azemite (which he taught to Melique Zulema), and almoronía, an invention of his own.
  3. He also cooked acelgas very well.
  4. Benengeli was an outstanding musician and taught many Manchegan women to dance the zambra and seguidillas; he learned to play the Galician bagpipe, and even modified this instrument's construction.
  5. He was a talented painter, and studied under Orbaneja, the painting master from Ubeda.
  6. In recognition of Benengeli's good service and advanced age, the Duke granted him his freedom so that he might return to his homeland; the lackey Tosilos accompanied him on part of his journey to Africa.
  7. Cide Hamete promised to write to the Duke and Duchess immediately upon his arrival at home but was prevented from this at first because of illness; whether he eventually died of this illness or was simply ungrateful is not clear.

     There is a charming whimsicality to these “Memorias.” Some of the details are comically absurd: his mother sweeping out the Mosque, his small-pox, his recipe for acelgas, his modification of the bagpipe, and others. The generally prosaic nature of his life, the offhand way in which it is stated that he composed Don Quijote, and the anticlimactic ambiguity of the final paragraph further humanize his figure. The idea that he was a prominent member of the Duke's staff, perhaps second only to the Majordomo, during Don Quijote's visit there gives him an intimate association with the figure whose partial biography he wrote.
     The outline of the life of Cide Hamete Benengeli is a minor piece of imaginative intertextual creation that can probably only interest devotees of Don Quijote. But, following as it does the text of the Adiciones in which Cide Hamete plays such a prominent role, it suggests that Jacinto María Delgado may have been the individual who most profoundly appreciated Cervantes' achievement with his


40 HOWARD MANCING Cervantes

narrator in the centuries that preceded our modern critical understanding and aesthetic appreciation of that figure.35
     I have made no exhaustive attempt to examine illustrated editions of Don Quijote and other manifestations of quixotic iconography in order to determine when and where the first graphic representation of the Moorish chronicler was published. I suspect, however, that it was in the 1842 Mexican edition of the Adiciones. The figure of Cide Hamete done for that edition by Ortega was then imitated by Oliveros in the 1845 Madrid edition of the novel. It seems only appropriate that the cover of this issue of Cervantes should be graced with a reproduction of the first known engraving of the illustrious historian Cide Hamete Benengeli.36

PURDUE UNIVERSITY


     35 A precedent for —though probably not a direct influence on, or even an inspiration for— Delgado's fiction about Cide Hamete is found in the preface to the Suite nouvelle. This preface, a short story in its own right, explains how Sansón Carrasco's investigative reporting enabled him to send detailed information about Don Quijote to his Moorish friend Benengeli in Salamanca and how the later wrote and had published the two parts on Don Quijote. The pastoral and other exploits of Don Quijote (who did not die, as mistakenly reported earlier) and Sancho Panza were also written but remained in manuscript form when Benengeli was forced to leave Spain for religious reasons. A Christian named Aranda, captive in Africa, came across the decades-old manuscript and after a long series of adventures of his own managed to have the work published. See Asensio, pp. 207-25. A useful and interesting addition to Cervantine studies would be a critical history of the imaginative accounts of how Don Quijote came to be written: Cervantes' version, this preface and Delgado's essay, modern versions of Cervantes' inspiration or of how Don Quijote or Sancho may ultimately be responsible for the work.
     36 I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Kenneth A. Lohf, Librarian for Rare Books and Manuscripts at the Butler library of Columbia University for permission to reproduce this engraving, and to Dian Fox who secured the copy for me. I must also express my thanks to Harold Jones, Catherine Swietlicki, and Vern Williamsen, who read an early draft of this essay and offered valuable suggestions for improvement.



WORKS CITED


Aguilar Piñal, Francisco. Bibliografía de autores españoles del siglo XVIII. Vol. 2. Madrid: C. S. I. C., 1983.

——. “Cervantes en el siglo XVIII. ” Anales Cervantinos 21 (1983): 153-63.

——. La prensa española en el siglo XVIII: Diarios, revistas y pronósticos. Cuadernos Bibliográficos, XXXV. Madrid: C. S. I. C., 1978.

Aguirre, José Luis. Cervantes y Don Quijote. Valencia: Cosmos, 1959.

Asensio, José María. “Los continuadores de El ingenioso hidalgo: La obra de un Avellaneda desconocido.” In Cervantes y sus obras. Barcelona: F. Seix, 1902, 199-232.

Baig Baños, Aurelio. “Antiguallas cervantinas de la prensa madrileña.” Revista de la Biblioteca, Archivo y Museo 4 (1927): 345-58.

Barbier, Ant.-Alex. Dictionnaire des ouvrages anonymes. 3rd ed. Vol. 4. Paris: Paul Daffis, 1879.

Bardon, Maurice. “Don Quichotte” en France au XVIIe et au XVIIIe siècle, 1605-1815. 2 vols. 1931; rpt. Genève: Slatkine, 1974.

Beltrán, Francisco. Catálogo de una importante colección de libros y folletos españoles y extrangeros referentes a bibliografía, biografía, bibliología, bibliofilia, la imprenta y sus artes auxiliares, &, &, formada, catalogada y puesta en venta. Madrid: Librería Española y Extranjera, 1927.

“Bibliografía.” Boletín de la Real Academia Española 4 (1917): 545-52.

——. Revista de Filología Española 3 (1916): 425-64; 4 (1917): 77-104; 5 (1918): 85-110; 6 (1919): 203-31.

Brown, Reginald F. La novela española, 1700-1850. Madrid: Bibliografías de Archivos y Bibliotecas, 1953.

Cejador y Frauca, Julio. Historia de la lengua y literatura castellana. Vol. 6. Madrid: Tip. de la “Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos”, 1917.

Cherchi, Paolo. Capitoli di critica cervantina (1605-1789). Biblioteca di Cultura, 89. Roma: Bulzoni, 1977.

Cotarelo y Mori, Emilio. “Otro imitador de Cervantes en el siglo XVIII” and “Las imitaciones castellanas del Quijote. ” In Estudios de historia literaria de España. Vol. 1. Madrid: Imprenta de “La Revista Española”, 1901, 53-69 and 71-100, respectively.

“Delgado (Jacinto María).” Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada 17: 1433.

Drake, Dana B. “Cervantine Bibliography.” Cervantes 1 (1981): 120-23.

“Esteso y López de Haro (Luis).” Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada 22: 909; and Apéndice 4: 1354.

Flores, R. M. Sancho Panza Through Three Hundred Seventy-five Years of Continuations, Imitations, and Criticism, 1605-1980. Documentación cervantina, no. 4. Newark: Juan de la Cuesta, Hispanic Monographs, 1982.

Ford, Jeremiah D. M. and Ruth Lansing. Cervantes: A Tentative Bibliography of His Works and of the Biographical and Critical Material Concerning Him. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1931.

García Soriano, Justo and Justo García Morales. “Guía del lector del Quijote. ” Prologue to their edition of El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha. 10th edition. Madrid: Aguilar, 1965, 13-169.

Givanel Mas, Juan. Catálogo de la Colección Cervantina. Vols. 1-2. Barcelona: Diputación Provincial, 1941-43.

41


42 HOWARD MANCING Cervantes

Grismer, Raymond L. Cervantes: A Bibliography. Books, Essays, Articles and Other Studies on the Life of Cervantes, His Works, and His Imitators. 2 vols. New York: W. Wilson, 1946; Minneapolis: Burgess-Beckwith, 1963.

Herr, Richard. The Eighteenth-Century Revolution in Spain. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1958.

Lapuente, Felipe A. “Los seudónimos en torno a Cervantes.” In Cervantes: Su obra y su mundo. Actas del I Congreso Internacional sobre Cervantes. Ed. Manuel Criado de Val. Madrid: Edi-6, 1981, 137-55.

León Máinez, Ramón. “Cervantes. Artículo crítico. Adiciones á la Historia del Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quixote de la Mancha, escritas en arábigo por Cide-Hamete Benenjeli, y traducidas al castellano por D. Jacinto María Delgado.” Sup. to no. 1.181 of the Diario de Cádiz. Dec., 1870.

——. “Noticias varias.” Crónica de los Cervantistas 1 (1872): 101-04.

Manrique, A. “Centeno, Pedro.” Diccionario de historia eclesiástica de España. Vol. 1. Madrid: C. S. I. C., 1972, 398-99.

Meregalli, Franco. “Profilo storico della critica cervantina nel Settecento.” In Rappresentazione artistica a rappresentazione scientifica nel “Secolo del Lumi.” Ed. Vittore Branca. Civiltà Europea a Civiltà Veneziana, Aspetti a Problemi, 6. Venezia: Sansone, 1970, 187-210.

Murillo, Luis Andrés. Bibliografía fundamental. Vol. 3 of his edition of Don Quijote de la Mancha. Clásicos Castalia, 79. Madrid; Castalia, 1978.

National Union Catalogue: Pre-1956 Imprints. Vols. 138, 278.

“Notas bibliográficas.” Revista de Filología Española 4 (1917): 393-414.

Palau y Dulcet, Antonio. Manual del librero hispano-americano. Inventario bibliográfico de la producción científica y literaria de España y de la América latina desde la invención de la imprenta hasta nuestros días, con el valor comercial de todos los artículos descritos. 7 vols. Barcelona: Librería Antiquaria, 1923-27.

——. Manual del librero hispano-americano. Bibliografía general española e hispano-americano desde la invención de la imprenta hasta nuestros tiempos, con el valor comercial de los impresos. 2nd ed. 28 vols. Barcelona: A. Palau, 1948-77.

——. Memorias de un librero catalán (1867-1935). Barcelona: Librería Catalonia, 1935.

Ponce de León Freyre, Eduardo and Florentino Zamora Lucas. 1.500 seudónimos modernos de la literatura española (1900-1942). Madrid: Instituto Nacional del Libro Español, 1942.

Río y Rico, Gabriel-Martín del. Catálogo bibliográfico de la Sección de Cervantes de la Biblioteca Nacional. Madrid: Tip. de la “Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos,” 1930.

Rius, Leopoldo. Bibliografía crítica de las obras de Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra. 3 vols. 1899; rpt. New York: Burt Franklin, 1970.

Rogers, Paul P. “Don Quijote as a Source of Hispanic Literary Pseudonyms.” In Studia hispanica in Honour of Rodolfo Cardona. Ed. Luis A. Ramos-García and Néstor Lugones. Austin: Studia Hispánica and Madrid: Cátedra, 1981, 139-50.

—— and F. A. Lapuente. Diccionario de seudónimos literarios españoles, con algunas iniciales. Madrid: Gredos, 1977.

Romero Flores, Hipólito H. Biografía de Sancho Panza, filósofo de la sensatez. 2nd ed. Biblioteca Biográfica, 2. Barcelona: Aedos, 1955.


7.1 (1987) Jacinto Mª Delgado and Cide Hamete Benengeli 43

Sbarbi, José María. El refranero general español. Vol. 5. 1876; rpt. Madrid: Atlas, 1980.

Smith, Gilbert. “El cervantismo en las polémicas literarias del siglo XVIII.” In Cervantes: Su obra y su mundo. Actas del I Congreso Internacional sobre Cervantes. Ed. Manuel Criado de Val. Madrid: Edi-6, 1981, 1031-35.

Ticknor, George. History of Spanish Literature. 6th ed. Vol. 3. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1872.

Uribe-Echevarría, Juan. Cervantes en las letras hispano-americanas (Antología y Crítica). Santiago: Ediciones de la Univ. de Chile, 1949.

Valle, Rafael Heliodoro and Emilia Romero. Bibliografía cervantina en la América española. México: Imprenta Universitaria, 1950.


Digitized with the help of Kendall Sydnor
Fred Jehle jehle@ipfw.edu Publications of the CSA HCervantes
URL: http://www.h-net.org/~cervantes/csa/artics87/mancing.htm