[jim] Yes, both parts first came out in print prior to 1700.

Just a wild stab at a windmill in the dark...

[jim] The baton...or lance in this case is passed to you...Don Quixote it is! The books Part I, El Ingenioso Hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha and its sequel were published for Cervantes ten years apart, in 1604 and 1614 by publisher Francisco de Robles. Incidentally, Don Quixote was one of the first bestseller books for which pirated editions soon appeared in the marketplace. The fact that I considered Don Quixote as being a little more immortal than just famous for being a fictional character (in response to CdM's question) is that the personality trait adjective "quixotic" has also been derived from his name.

---

Thank you, thank you. Another result of the first book's being so popular was a rash of what you might call "unofficial sequels", of rather poor quality. The second book was written in part as a response to these.
I hope it's not considered too much bad form to guess like that straight after having a question answered. Actually, I couldn't think of any two-part foreign language books of that sort of antiquity, and was about to guess the Bible, although certain that wasn't it, just to eliminate the possibility, when another candidate suddenly struck me.

Anyway, I am now thinking of an ABSTRACT, with ANIMAL and VEGETABLE connections. Game on.

'En un lugar de La Mancha, de cuyo nombre no quiero recordarme...' - I've always liked that as an opening line - it's the 'no quiero' that gives it its interest.

[Animal human] In one connection, specifically yes. In another connection, yes, but not specifically so. In a sense, specifically no.

[Contains a verb] No verb.
[Well known phrase] No. That is, the name of the thing is certainly well known, and you might make a case for its being a phrase or saying, but the thing itself is not one.

[Minotaur] No.

[Character] No.

[Individual] The "specifically human" connection is to a specific individual human, yes.

[Tuj] Pno.
[Gusset] Noy.

[General reference] No. There's a sense in which the AOTC could be said to refer to a group of closely related entities, but it would usually be considered as a single specific thing.

[Mythical creature] No.

[Name on card] No.
[Male human] Yes.

[Leader] The person in question could certainly be considered a leader, but if you mean to ask if he is principally known as the leader of some group, nation, army etc., the answer is no.
[Specific vegetable] No.
I should clarify that when I say that the name of the human does not appear on the card, I mean precisely that. It would not be unnatural to describe the thing in terms of the person, but the name of the thing as I am envisaging it on the card does not contain the person's name.

[Specific type of vegetable] No.
[Fictional human] No.

[Human involved] Yes. Some murmurs of appreciation from the crowd
[Invented] I'm not sure "invented" is the right word, but it was more invented than discovered, although there is a strong connection to discovery.