Note 100 — INTRODUCTION TO THE GALATEA.

Gregorio Mayáns y Siscar suggests (op. cit., vol. i., pp. 28-29) that the Aprobación, though signed by Márquez Torres, was really written by Cervantes himself: "57 ... Pensarà el Letor que quien dijo èsto, fué el Licenciado Màrquez Torres; no fué sino el mismo Miguèl de Cervantes Saavedra: porque el estilo del Licenciado Màrquez Torres, es metaforico, afectadillo, i pedantesco; como lo manifiestan los Discursos Consolatorios que escriviò a Don Christoval de Sandoval i Rojas, Duque de Uceda en la Muerte de Don Bernardo de Sandoval i Rojas, su hijo, primer Marquès de Belmonte; i al contrario el estilo de la Aprovacion, es puro, natural, i cortesano, i tan parecido en todo al de Cervantes, que no ai cosa en él que le dístinga. El Licenciado Màrquez era Capellán, i Maestro de Pages de Don Bernardo Sandoval i Rojas, Cardenal, Arzobispo de Toledo, Inquisidor General; Cervantes era mui favorecido del mismo. Con que ciertamente eran entrambos amigos.

"58. Supuesta la amistad, no era mucho, que usase Cervantes de semejante libertad. Contèntese pues el Licenciado Màrquez Torres, con que Cervantes le hizo partícipe de la gloria de su estilo. I veamos que moviò a Cervantes a querer hablar, como dicen, por boca de ganso. No fué otro su designio, sino manifestar la idea de su Obra, la estimacion de ella, i de su Autor en las Naciones estrañas, i su desvalimiento en la propia."

Navarrete protests (op. cit., pp. 491-493) against the theory put forward by Mayáns, notes that Márquez Torres published his Discursos in 1626 when culteranismo was in full vogue, and contends that he may have written in much better style eleven years earlier.

It would be imprudent to give great importance to arguments based solely on alleged differences of style. That Márquez Torres was in holy orders, and that he was appointed chaplain to a prelate so virtuous and clear-sighted as the Cardinal-Archbishop of Toledo are strong presumptions in his favour. Nothing that is known of him tends to discredit his testimony. It would be most unjustifiable to assume of any one in his responsible position that he was capable of inventing an elaborate story from beginning to end, and of publishing a tissue of falsehoods to the world. Nor can we lightly suppose that Cervantes would lend himself to such trickery. The probability surely is that there is some good foundation for the anecdote, though perhaps the tale may have lost nothing in the telling.

Still, the history of literature furnishes analogous examples of persons who tampered with preliminary matter—dedications and the like—and stuffed these pages with praises of themselves. Le Sage evidently refers to a recent incident in real life when he interpolates the following passage into the revised text of Le Diable boiteux (Rouen, 1728), pp. 37-38: "A propos d'Epîtres Dédicatoires, ajoûta le Démon, il faut que je vous raporte un trait assez singulier. Une femme de la Cour aiant permis qu'on lui dédiât un ouvrage, en voulut voir la Dédicace avant qu'on l'imprimât, & ne s'y trouvant pas assez bien loüée à son gré, elle prit la peine d'en composer une de sa façon & de l'envoier à l'Auteur pour la mettre à la tête de son ouvrage."

A somewhat similar instance is afforded by La Rochefoucauld, who asked Madame de Sablé to review his Pensées in the Journal des Savants. The lady thoughtfully submitted the manuscript of her article to the author, and the result is recorded by Hippolyte Cocheris, Table méthodique et analytique des articles du Journal des Savants depuis sa réorganisation en 1816 jusqu'en 1858 inclusivement précédée d'une notice historique sur ce journal depuis sa fondation jusqu'à nos jours (Paris, 1860), pp. vi.-vii. "Larochefoucauld prit au mot Mme de Sablé; il usa très-librement de son article, il supprima les critiques, garda les éloges, et le fit insérer dans le Journal des Savants (1665, p. 116 et suiv.), ainsi amendé et pur de toute prétention à l'impartialité."