Such success insured for it a long series of imitations; most of them yet more offensive to morals and public decency than the Celestina itself, and all of them, as might be anticipated, of inferior literary merit to their model. One, called “The Second Comedia of Celestina,” in which she is raised from the dead, was published in 1530, by Feliciano de Silva, the author of the old romance of “Florisel de Niquea,” and went through four editions. Another, by Domingo de Castega, was sometimes added to the successive reprints of the original work after 1534. A third, by Gaspar Gomez de Toledo, appeared in 1537; a fourth, ten years later, by an unknown author, called “The Tragedy of Policiana,” in twenty-nine acts; a fifth, in 1554, by Joan Rodrigues Florian, in forty-three scenes, called “The Comedia of Florinea”; and a sixth, “The Selvagia,” in five acts, also in 1554, by Alonso de Villegas. In 1513, Pedro de Urrea, of the same family with the translator of Ariosto, rendered the first act of the original Celestina into good Castilian verse, dedicating it to his mother; and in 1540, Juan Sedeño, the translator of Tasso, performed a similar service for the whole of it. Tales and romances followed, somewhat later, in large numbers; some, like “The Ingenious Helen,” and “The Cunning Flora,” not without merit; while others, like “The Eufrosina,” praised more than it deserves by Quevedo, were little regarded from the first.[429] [429] Puibusque, Hist. Comparée des Littératures Espagnole et Française, Paris, 1843, 8vo, Tom. I. p. 478;--the Essay prefixed to the French translation of Lavigne, Paris, 1841, 12mo;--Montiano y Luyando, Discurso sobre las Tragedias Españolas, Madrid, 1750, 12mo, p. 9, and _post_, c. 21. The “Ingeniosa Helena” (1613) and the “Flora Malsabidilla” (1623) are by Salas Barbadillo, and will be noticed hereafter, among the prose fictions of the seventeenth century. The “Eufrosina” is by Ferreira de Vasconcellos, a Portuguese, and why, in 1631, it was translated into Spanish by Ballesteros Saavedra as if it had been anonymous, I know not. It is often mentioned as the work of Lobo, another Portuguese, (Barbosa, Bib. Lusit., Tom. II. p. 242, and Tom. IV. p. 143,) and Quevedo, in his Preface to the Spanish version, seems to have been of that opinion; but this, too, is not true. Lobo only prepared, in 1613, an edition of the Portuguese original. Of the imitations of the Celestina mentioned in the text, two, perhaps, deserve further notice.