1. The edition that I am reading contains a list of annotations, which I have been consulting. The editors agree with your statement that much of his work references or alludes to Shakespeare. To an alert reader of his time, this should have discreditied the "translation" guise. Or not? From what I gather, the story was purported to have "taken place" in the 1070s or so.

2. Along the same lines, purpoting to "translate" something and pass it off has been used today. William Goldwyn's The Princess Bride is an example of that. I will not discuss that, as it does not belong here, but I found it intersting that a similar hoax took place with C of O. Was the purpose to set it apart as truth, and not a waste of time novel? Or did it seimply lend more mystery to it? I know that my students are forever asking "Is this true?" to every poem, story, or article that we read in class. For some reason, knowing something is true makes it more interesting. Any thoughts?