El viaje, I, lines 97 and 98. (N. from the A.)

Miguel de Cervantes, Don Quijote de la Mancha, ed. John Jay Allen (Madrid: Cátedra, 1980) I, 80. Subsequent references are to this edition. (N. from the A.)

Menéndez Pelayo, Orígenes de la novela, III, pp. LVIII, LXXXVI, XCIII; Fernando Toro Garland, «Celestina, hechicera, clásica y tradicional», Cuadernos hispánicos; 60 (1964), 439-45; Florentino Castro Guisasola, Observaciones sobre las fuentes literarias de 'La Celestina'; A. Bonilla y San Martín, «Antecedentes del tipo celestinesco en la literatura latina», Revue Hispanique 15 (1906), 378; and Barbara Jean Trisler,«A Comparative Study of the Character Portrayal of Celestina and Other Golden Age Celestinesque Protagonists», Diss. University of Oklahoma, 1977, pp. 2-4. (N. from the A.)

'La Celestina' como contienda literaria (Madrid: Castilla, 1965), p. 74. (N. from the A.)

The Evolution of the Go-Between in Spanish Literature Through the Sixteenth Century (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966) p. 1. (N. from the A.)

The question of whether Celestina practiced witchcraft or sorcery has been much debated, as has the question whether there was in fact a significant difference between the terms bruja and hechicera in Cervantes' time. Charles Lea makes the following distinction between sorcery and witchcraft: «The culmination of sorcery was witchcraft and yet it was not the same. In it there is no longer talk of pact with the demon... with the expectation of washing out the sin in the confessional and thus cheating the devil. The witch has abandoned Christianity, has renounced her baptism, has worshipped Satan as her God, has surrendered herself to him, body and soul, and exists only to be his instrument in working the evil to her fellow-creatures, which he cannot accomplish without a human agent». (A History of the Inquisition of Spain [New York: Macmillan Co., 1907], IV, 206. By this definition, Cañizares is a witch, while Celestina is clearly not, as Peter Dunn (Fernando de Rojas [Boston: Twayne, 1975] and others have emphasized, and must be called a sorceress, although Gustavo Correa («Naturaleza, religión y honra en La Celestina»), PMLA 77 [1962], 10), Frederick de Armas («The Demoniacal in La Celestina», South Atlantic Bulletin 36 [1971], 35-36), Ruggerio (p. 1) and others explicitly call her a witch. For the purposes of the comparison I will make here, the distinction is not particularly important: the activities in which both Celestina and Cañizares engage are remarkably similar in any case. (N. from the A.)

See Gonzalo de Amezúa y Mayo, Cervantes, creador de la novela corta española II (Madrid: Castalia, 1958), p. 454. (N. from the A.)

Simancas as cited by Amezúa, p. 186. See also Maestro Pedro Ciruelo, Reprobación de las supersticiones y hechicerías VII, No. 111, p. 117. (N. from the A.)

Miguel de Cervantes, Novelas ejemplares, ed. Harry Sieber (Madrid: Cátedra, 1980), II, 52. Subsequent references are to this edition. (N. from the A.)

For a discussion of Cervantes' use of magic and witchcraft see Ricardo del Arco y Garay, «Supersticiones populares» in La sociedad española en las obras de Cervantes (Madrid: Patronato del IV Centenario del Nacimiento de Cervantes, 1951); Stephen Harrison, «Magic in the Spanish Golden Age: Cervantes's Second Thoughts», Renaissance and Reformation, IV, i (1980), 47-64; Edward C. Riley, «Aspectos del concepto de admiratio en la teoría literaria del Siglo de Oro», Studia Philologica: Homenaje a Dámaso Alonso, III (Madrid: Gredos, 1963), 173-84; Amezúa, pp. 454-55. Cesare de Lollis, Cervantes reazionario (Instituto Cristoforo Colombo, 1924), pp. 194-196; Américo Castro, El pensamiento de Cervantes (Barcelona: Noguer, 1972), pp. 94-96. (N. from the A.)