When was rinconete y cortadillo written

With a big part of the money Monipodio gets thanks to robbing, he made them pay candles for the virgin and saints. He thought that by doing this he was a good believer and he fulfilled his obligations as a good Christian actually, a prostitute said in the book that with her impure work she was gaining her place in the heaven. It's specified everything on it, both the crime and the payment, and also how must it be done and who would do it. Also the people of the town contract the services of the brotherhood to take revenge of another person.

In this novel Cervantes is only describing a reality, he is not evaluating what he is writing. The general structure of the book is lineal because it narrates the events as they are happening. Nevertheless, the structure turns a bit rhetorical because the protagonists tell us events of the past that could be considered as flashbacks.

However, along the novel, we can see that it's organized in three parts that correspond to the three stages in the life of Rinconete and Cortadillo. The first part begin with the meeting of the two boys and finishes with their first job as merchandise carriers; the second part it's from the meeting of Ganchuelo to nearly the end of the novel; and finally the third part is very short and introduces only the thoughts and reflections of Rinconete.

The story of Rinconete and Cortadillo has a moral representation of the life more that a moral teaching. We can see that most of the things these boys have done are not correct, are bad things; nevertheless, these things were reflected everyday in the Spanish society of the XVI century.

The brotherhood it's an exaggerated representation of the Sevilla of that time. All the characters are amusing and sympathetic in many cases; nevertheless they are acting in a way that it's not correct.

And the reason is because these characters inspire us compassion, pity… sometimes we laugh at them. They seem to be stupid, and because of that they are charismatic. They are not teaching us a moral, they are representing a society in a way that we can see that our society is corrupted, and this is the moral to learn.

When we begin to read the novella, we see these two boys as the protagonist of the story, they are robbers, but they seem to be two young gentlemen. Nevertheless, when they arrived to the brotherhood of Monipodio, this vision changes; and the reason from my point of view is because now, Rinconete and Cortadillo have changed, without wanting it, their social status, now they are not the ones who control the story, there is another one, Monipodio, the one who decides what must be done and who must do it.

Rinconete and Cortadillo are the leaders nomore. The narrator is curious, because he let the protagonists present themselves, he doesn't introduce them. Nevertheless it's not a narrator in first person, it's a narrator in third person, and omniscient.

He knows everything about the characters; nevertheless he does not evaluate their behavior, what makes the reader evaluate the character's actions.

He criticizes the Spanish scholar for offering no theory «as to how Cervantes managed to retain another copy or how the primitive one may have been returned to the author's hand for eventual publication» p. How did Cervantes «mysteriously» «come into contact note the «studied vagueness» of this phrase with the Porras versions? How was he able to retain copies of them or return the originals to the Licentiate's hand for eventual presentation to the Archbishop?

Why is Aylward's explanation one whit more likely than Criado de Val's? In fact, the traditional assumption carries far more conviction than Aylward's. One may hypothesize as follows. Cervantes's duties often caused him to be absent from Seville. It is not credible that he would always take all his belongings on his travels; rather he would leave them behind in storage at his lodging or inn.

Those belongings would include his literary works, put away in some trunk like his dramatic works or case such as contained the manuscripts of «El curioso impertinente» and «Rinconete y Cortadillo» and was left behind at the inn in Don Quijote. Cervantes, who liked to «deceive with the truth», may, indeed, have been limning life when he showed the cura a cleric, like Porras! Left at an inn, such papers could easily have been abstracted, copied and returned during the author's absence, and the passage in Don Quijote may be fairly interpreted as Cervantes's way of staking his claim to work that was his but that he knew had been copied.

As for anonymity, there was no reason why Cervantes should conveniently have signed every page or piece that he wrote. One can indeed make a case. Aylward does not even try to make a case for the existence of the «primitive draft» by an unknown that he suggests p. In view of this deficiency, it becomes even more important that the author should demonstrate that the Porras MS. The Privilege of the novel is dated 26 September, But this is another matter that Aylward does not even bother to discuss.

Worse still, he variously places the time of compilation at «circa » p. Navarrete further reports that certain late events, of and even , are related in the MS.

His observations further undermine Aylward's thesis. In the Appendix Aylward tries to have his cake and eat it: having proved, to his own satisfaction at least, that Cervantes plagiarized «Rinconete y Cortadillo», he now maintains that the novelist's reworking of this tale casts him in the mould of literary pioneer.

This simply will not do. The differences between the Porras and Cuesta versions of the story are largely of stylistic detail, not of general form or treatment, and it is completely illogical for Aylward, given his acceptance of Cervantes as plagiarist, to analyse the content of the short story as a demonstration of Cervantine originality in novelistic technique.

He himself, with reference to one passage, observes: «The differences between the Porras and versions are slight and insignificant; the technique of letting characters paint their own portrait was already present in the original and was merely embellished by Cervantes» p.

Four pages later he adds: «Cervantes' Confusion can hardly go further. Aylward claims to see it as a political allegory. He concludes by stating that Cervantes left the introductory portion «almost intact» and that the remaining narrative «has no new or striking symbolic content» p. One fails to see how Cervantes can emerge, in this perspective, as a «pioneer». Surely the pioneer, if anyone, is Porras or his source? Aylward's book, it is clear, has grave faults.

Nevertheless, its author deserves high praise for having identified and documented the most significant aspect of the whole Porras affair. Criado de Val had caught a partial glimpse of it when he wrote, with respect to one passage of «Rinconete y Cortadillo»: « Son dos manos las que han redactado estas versiones, y son dos mentalidades muy distintas las que han imaginado, de forma tan opuesta, una misma escena ».

This is excellent. But, we submit, the conclusion that he drew from this revealing insight is open to the most serious doubt. What is odd about this consensus is that it runs directly counter to what is now known or postulated about Cervantes's general methods of revision. Evidence is accumulating that these were of the most rudimentary and haphazard kind. To them may be attributed some at least of the novelist's many so-called «descuidos».

These flaws vitiate a number of passages of Don Quijote , producing, for example, the nonsense of the walling up of the hidalgo 's library after all his books have been burnt, « por que cuando se levantase no los hallase » I, 7 , or causing the silent disappearance of Sancho's ass. Osuna has devoted a substantial article to «Vacilaciones y olvidos de Cervantes en el Persiles », 70 and Harrison has related a number of contradictions in that work to a process of hasty and incomplete revision.

This with reference to novels written at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of Cervantes's literary career.

Yet with regard to the two short stories under consideration we are asked to believe that the novelist carried through the most meticulous correction of earlier versions. This serious inconsistency demands that we take another look at the «Porras problem». Past investigators have considered only a limited number of possible answers to the questions that it raises. Our first task then is to list all the possibilities inherent in the situation, seeking later to eliminate those that for one reason or another are judged inadmissible.

First, let us assume that only two texts Porras and Cuesta were involved; this assumption furnishes two possibilities:. Secondly, let us assume that a third, original, text was involved. This third text may have been written by Cervantes, by Porras, or by an unknown. For each of these assumed originals we must postulate three possible developments:.

Porras c O Cuesta This gives us a total of nine further possibilities, making a grand total of eleven. We can simplify our investigation by considering, in the first place, only the final terms of each possibility; all eleven possibilities can accordingly be arranged in three sets:. Set 3: Porras and Cuesta as products of a common source. This arrangement may permit us to reach conclusions more expeditiously.

We turn to the texts, in the hope that they will provide clues to their relative place in the stemma. They differ in a multitude of details, but -the point is important- in the great majority of cases their differences will tell us nothing about anteriority or derivation. Porras is seen, for example, to prefer the -se form of the subjunctive, and Cervantes the -ra form, 73 but from this fact we cannot deduce whether Porras changed Cervantes's inflections, or vice-versa. If Porras dates the stories and Cervantes does not, 74 we cannot know whether Porras added dates to the Cervantine text, or Cervantes removed them from the Licentiate's.

Et sic de similibus. The mere accumulation of data of this kind will throw no light on the matter at issue. Yet differences there are that will do so, differences that are not, so to speak, «reversible». The Cuesta reading « estrados » makes perfect sense in the context, and the Porras reading « entradas » also of eight letters, six of them identical with those of the previous word does not.

It is clear that the scribe 77 here misread two letters of the manuscript that he was copying. Loaysa has a desire to enter the Carrizales household.

SB, II, , 1. But, again, a word of eight letters has been replaced by another of similar length, with six of the eight letters identical.