Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:14:37.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Spanish Novel of “Ideas”: Critical Opinion (1836–1880)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Sherman H. Eoff
Sherman H. Eoff*
Affiliation:
Washington University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The rebirth of the Spanish novel in the nineteenth century is commonly identified with Galdós, Valera, Alarcón, and Pereda in the decade 1870–80, while the costumbristas and Fernán Caballero are looked upon as precursors of this rebirth. The purpose of the present study is to present, for some four or five decades and with attention to the novel, a prominent phase of critical tastes in Spain. Some critics looked upon the renaissance of the Spanish novel as fortunately having taken place in the novel which gave emphasis to ideas, or, as they were wont to describe it, the “philosophical” or “transcendental” novel. But the Spanish terms filosofía, trascendencia, and even trascendentalismo were very loosely used. Thus, the novel which dealt with ideas of social, moral, religious, or political significance was commonly called filosófica and trascendental, especially in the 1870's: The novel of thesis, sometimes called novela tendenciosa, was a notable manifestation of this type of “philosophical” novel. The importance attached by critics at this time to ideas of trascendencia in the novel was for the most part in keeping with the critical tastes of the preceding decades; certain novels of Galdós, Valera, Alarcón, and Pereda, praised by contemporary critics for their trascendencia, seemingly were the fulfillment of an aspiration on the part of earlier critics that the novel treat of important ideas underlying society. On the other hand, the attitude toward the propagation of ideas shows a marked change in its development. In this survey of critical writings on the novel, I shall attempt to present a consensus of views on the novel which stressed ideas, to show how the common attitude developed. Much of the criticism under consideration is of little intrinsic value; it is often influenced by religious and political prejudices and shows a level of mediocrity in critical thought, particularly for the reign of Isabel II. But, considered as a whole, it reveals common traits indicative of a trend in literary tastes,—a trend which becomes of interest when viewed in the light of certain tendencies in the novel.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , June 1940 , pp. 531 - 558
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1940

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The issues connected with “ideas” in the novel together with the question of realism were the topics most discussed by the critics who witnessed the revival of the Spanish novel.

2 The critical expressions which I record parallel in many respects what was said of the drama and of literature in general. Spanish literary criticism during the period seems to have been inclined toward what the Spaniards sometimes called trascendentalismo. In 1868 Gumersindo Laverde, Ensayos críticos (Lugo, 1868), pp. 468–469, reviewing Fr. Fernández y González, Historia de la crítica literaria en España desde Luzan hasta nuestres días con exclusion de los autores que aun viven (Madrid, 1867), speaks of the trascendentalismo of contemporary criticism, by which he means the tendency to examine literature with special attention to its social, religious, and political background. Laverde thinks that Fernández y González should have pointed out the difference between the new school of criticism (trascendentalismo) and the old school (formalismo), which views literature from the standpoint of art alone.

3 Spanish criticism of the novel in the nineteenth century is comparatively scarce until the important Spanish novelists begin to publish.

4 “Literatura. Rápida ojeada sobre la historia e índole de la nuestra. Su estado actual. Su porvenir. Profesión de fe,” Artículos de crítica literaria y artística, ii, (Madrid, 1923).

5 Ibid., 196.

6 Ibid., 197–198. It has been pointed out—Julio Nombela y Campos, Larra (Madrid, 1906), p. 236; José R. Lomba y Pedraja, “Prólogo” to Larra's Artículos de crít. lit. y art., xiv—that this profession of faith, published (in El Español, 18 de enero de 1836) soon after Larra's return from France, is a rather vehement espousal of French critical thought, which was not entirely in keeping with the justo medio for which Larra generally stood and which he subsequently modified and even contradicted (Nombela, pp. 237 ff.). The part of the profession which Larra may not have later wished to be taken absolutely is probably that having to do with propaganda. He rebelled against some of the French dramas directed at the disorganization of society (“Antony,” artículo segundo, 25 de junio de 1836) and the setting of the poor classes against the aristocracy (“El Pilluelo de París,” noviembre de 1836), and furthermore declaimed against the vassalage of Spanish literature to the French (“Antony,” artículo primero, 23 de junio de 1836). But this does not mean that he was opposed to what he would call wholesome propaganda. His main concern was that Spanish literature identify itself with contemporary Spanish society and not try to relive the experiences of the French.

7 “Del movimiento literario en España, ii,” Museo artístico literario, 6 de julio, 1837, p. 40.

8 “Del Movimiento lit. en Esp. i,” Mus. art. lit., 29 de junio, 1837, p. 34.

9 “¿Qué es la novela?,” Revista de Madrid, 2a serie, iv (1840), 108. I have supplied accent marks and question marks when these were missing in the original titles and quotations.

10 Ibid., 114.

11 “Obras del Curioso Parlante. Artículo I. Escenas matritenses,” Rev. de Mad., 3a serie, iii (1842).

12 “De la novela,” Ensayos literarios y críticos, i (Sevilla, 1844), p. 155. According to the prologuist, J. Joaquín de Mora, the articles in this collection had first appeared separately in a daily of Cádiz. The article cited here was probably written in 1840. It takes as a starting point the discourses delivered in the Ateneo, Jan. 25, 1840 on “Paralelo entre las modernas novelas historicas y las antiguas caballerescas.”

13 “La novela española, i” Semanario pintoresço español, xii (1847), 82–83.

14 “La novela esp. iii,” Sem. pint, esp., xii (1847), 130.

15 “De la novela moderna,” Revista de España, de Indias y del estranjero, xii (1848), 181–188.

16 Ibid., 183.

17 Ibid., 188.

18 The period of Sue's greatest popularity in Spain, to judge from notices of translations and imitations of his works and articles written in his praise, was apparently 1844–47.

19 S. B. de C. [Salvador Bermùdez de Castro], “De la novela moderna,” Sem. pint, esp., v (1840).

20 “De las novelitas francesas” (anonymous), Sem. pint, esp., v (1840), 261–262.

21 “Creencias y desengaños, novela original por D. Ramón de Navarrete,” Rev. de Mad. 2a época, i (1843), 101 ff.

22 Ibid., 100.

23 Ibid., 101.

24 “Critica literaria,” Sem. pint, esp., xi (1846).

25 “Eugenio Sué,” El Siglo pintoresco, ii (1846), 209–212.

26 “La novela esp. II,” Sem. pint, esp., xii (1847), 117.

27 Ibid., 118.

28 “De la nov. mod.,” Rev. de Esp., de Ind. y del estranj., xii (1848), 187.

29 Loc. cit.

30 Valera, “Los Miserables. . . .” (1862), Obras completas, xxii, 131, testifies that before 1848, in contrast to the situation in 1862, Spaniards scarcely knew what socialism was, and that Sue was published at that time without thought of his doctrines.

31 “Catalina Howard” [1836], Obras completas, iii (Paris, 1889), p. 64.

32 “¿Qué es la novela?”, Rev. de Mad., 2a serie, iv (1840), 116.

33 “Creencias y desengaños . . .,” Rev. de Mad., 2a época, i (1843), 101–102.

34 “Influencia de la novela en las costumbres,” Obras críticas y literarias, i (Palma de Mallorca, 1882), p. 120. The date of Forteza's essay is 1857. It was awarded the prize in a certámen conducted by the Real Academia Sevillana de Buenas Letras; see Rev. de ciencias, lit. y artes, iv (1857), 62 (“Miscelánea”).

35 Ibid., 129.

36 “De Villahermosa a la China. Coloquios de la vida íntima, por Don Nicomedes Pastor Díaz,” Rev. de ciencias, lit. y artes, v (1859), 407.

37 “Historia del Semanario,” Sem. pint, esp., xviii (1853), 3.

38 “Prólogo,” Un servilón y un liberalito (Madrid, 1857), pp. xii–xiii.

39 “Discourso leído ante la Real Academia Sevillana de Buenas Letras . . . sobre la influencia de la novela en las costumbres,” Rev. de ciencias lit. y artes, iv (1857), 38.

40 “Prólogo,” Clemencia, ii (Madrid, 1857), p. x.

41 See “Prólogo del autor,” Estar de más, in Obras completas, ix (Madrid, 1924), p. 191.

42 See Alberto López Argüello, Epistolario de Fernán Caballero (Barcelona, 1922), p. 92, letter of 3 de agosto de 1857.

43 “Fabiola,” Rev. de ciencias, lit. y artes, ii (1856), 429–430.

44 Pedro de Pardo y Torres, “La historia y la novela. Artículo original,” Sem. pint, esp., xix (1854), 365.

45 “Observaciones sobre la Novela” [1860], Discursos leídos en las recepciones publicas que ha celebrado desde 1847 la Real Academia Española, ii (Madrid, 1860).

46 Ibid., 382. Fernán Caballero shows her agreement with Nocedal's discourse for she writes (to Cañete) that she is glad to see Nocedal boldly project his philosophy of religion and morality; see Arguello, Epistolario de Fernán Caballero, 124.

47 Ibid., 394.

48 Ibid., 386.

49 “Discurso de contestación,” Discursos . . . Real Acad. Esp., ii, 405–414.

50 Ibid., 407.

51 Ibid., 409–410.

52 “De la naturaleza y carácter de la novela” (1860), Obras completas, xxi.

53 Ibid., 46.

54 Ibid., 47.

55 Ibid., 37 ff.

56 “Los miserables. Primera parte. Fanlina. Por Victor Hugo” (1862), Obr. comp., xxii.

57 Ibid., 119.

58 “De la naturaleza y carácter de la novela,” Obr. comp., xxi, 48.

59 “Alfonso: novela original, por Don Fernando Fulgosio,” El Museo universal, x (1866), 222.

60 Loc. cit.

61 “La novela. Estudio histórico-filosófico desde su nacimiento a nuestros días,” Revista de España, x (1869), 115.

62 Ibid., 116.

63 “Estudio histórico-crítico sobre la novela,” El Liceo de Granada, Revista quincenal de ciencias, literatura y artes, i (1869), 6–9.

64 Ibid., 9.

65 “Revista de la semana,” El Mus. univ. xi (1867), 2.

66 “Prólogo,” La Estrella de Vandalia (Madrid, 1857), p. viii.

67 Ibid., xxv.

68 “Revista de Madrid” (1856), Obr. comp., xix, 266.

69 Ibid., 267. Not all the comments on Fernán Caballero's sermonizing were as mild as these statements of Pacheco and Valera. Fernán's concern over the numerous caustic attacks on her neo-Catholicism and her “novelas devocionarias,” including an article by Valera himself, may be seen in some of her letters from 1859 to 1865. See: Arguello, Epistolario, 123, 134; and Obras completas de Fernán Caballero, xiv (Epistolario), 397, 407.

70 “De la naturaleza y carácter de la novela,” Obr. comp., xxi, 46.

71 Ibid., 47.

72 Ibid., 48. Cf. Francisco Giner,“ Proverbios ejemplares . . . (Ruiz Aguilera),” 1864, in Estudios de literatura y arte, 2a. ed. (Madrid, 1876), for a similar objection to sermonizing.

78 “Observaciones sobre la novela contemporánea en España, Proverbios ejemplares y Proverbios cómicos, por D. Ventura Ruiz Aguilera,” Rev. de Esp., xv (1870), 162–172.

74 Ibid., 167.

75 “La novela en la edad moderna,” Rev. de Esp., xxi (1871), 34.

76 El realismo en el arte contemporáneo (Madrid, [1874?]), p. 33.

77 “Una opinión acerca de este libro” (1874), prologue to El sombrero de tres picos (Madrid, 1906), p. 12.

78 Ibid., 13.

79 See “Las ilusiones del Doctor Faustino, por D. Juan Valera,” Revista europea, v (1875), 73; “Revista crítica,” Revista contemporánea, vii (1877), 279–280 (apropos of Gloria).

80 Cf. further “El escandalo, por Don Pedro Antonio de Alarcón,” La Ilustración española y americana, xxvi (1875), 22.

81 “Rev. crít,” Rev. contemp., iv (1876), 126.

82 Referring to a statement to this effect by a French critic, in the first part of his article.

83 “Gloria, novela del señor Pérez Galdós. (Primera parte),” Rev. eur., ix (1877), 208.

84 “Los novelistas españoles. Fernán Caballero,” Rev. eur., xi (1878), 243.

85 “Los nov. esp. D. Benito Pérez Galdós,” Rev. eur., xi (1878), 338.

86 “Los nov. esp. D. Pedro Antonio de Alarcón,” Rev. eur., xi (1878), 467.

87 “La cigarra. Relación contemporánea, por D. José Ortega Munilla,” Rev. de Esp., lxvii (1879), 283.

88 Loc. cit.

89 “Una nueva teoría acerca de la clasificación de las obras novelescas,” Rev. contemp., vi (1876), 244.

90 “Recuerdos de una polémica acerca de la novela de D. Juan Valera, Pepita Jiménez,” Rev. de Esp., liii (1876), 269 ff.

91 “La literatura docente. Doña Luz, novela original de D. Juan Valera,” Rev. de Esp., lxvii (1879), 347.

92 “Las ilusiones del doctor Faustino por D. Juan Valera,” La Ilustr. esp. y amer., xxviii (1875), 59.

93 “Rev. crít,” Rev. contemp., xvi (1878), 121–125.

94 “Gloria, . . .,” Rev. eur. ix (1877), 208.

95 Loc. cit.

96 “El escándalo, novela por Pedro Antonio de Alarcón,” Rev. eur., v (1875), 132.

97 Loc. cit.

98 “El escándalo, novela por Pedro Antonio de Alarcón,” La Ilustr. esp. y amer., xxvi (1875), 22–23.

99 “Bocetos literarios. Don Pedro Antonio de Alarcón,” Rev. contemp., xi (1877), 23.

100 “Gloria . . .,” Rev. eur., ix (1877), 209.

101 “Rev. crít.,” Rev. contemp., iv (1876), 377.

102 Idem., vii (1877), 279.

103 Idem., ix (1877), 379.

104 Ibid., 381.

105 “Análisis y ensayos. La familia de León Roch por Benito Pérez Galdós,” Rev. contemp., xix (1879), 503.

106 “Gloria . . .,” Rev. eur., ix (1877), 208 ff. Cf. Edith Fishtine “‘Clarín’ in His Early Writing,” Romanic Review, xxix (1938), 333.

107 Later, when his interest in the “philosophical” movement has subsided, Alas is careful to assure his readers that he thinks highly of the Episodios nacionales; see “Gloria (Pérez Galdós). Primera parte,” Solos de Clarín, 4th ed. (Madrid, 1891), footnote, p. 365 (first edition: 1881).

108 “Los nov. esp. D. Benito Pérez Galdós,” Rev. eur., xi (1878), 335–339, 400–405.

109 See José Ma. de Cossío, La obra literaria de Pereda, Santander, 1934, pp. 129 ff. Pereda expresses the same sentiment in a letter to Menéndez y Pelayo; see M. Artigas, “De la correspondencia entre Pereda y Menéndez y Pelayo,” BBMP, xv (1933), 92, letter of Feb. 15, 1877.

110 Historia de los heterodosos españoles, viii [1882] (Madrid 1932), p. 486.

111 “D. Benito Pérez Galdós . . .” (1897), Estudios de crít. lit., v (Madrid, 1908), p. 112.

112 A fairly comprehensive view of the contemporary criticism of Pereda can be had from Cossío's La obra lit. de Pereda, although the book would be of more value if the summaries and quotations were fuller.

113 “Boletín bibliográfico. Bocetos al temple por J. M. de Pereda,” Rev. de Esp., lii (1876), 574.

114 “El buey suelto . . . Cuadros . . . por J. M. Pereda,” Rev. de Esp., lxii (1878), 285.

115 “El buey suelto,” Solos de Clarín, 241–255. The sharp criticism of this novel Alas would later have modified, because of the admiration which he came to have for Pereda; see footnote, p. 241; also “prólogo de la cuarta edición,” p. 2.

116 “Don Gonzalo González de la Gonzalera (Pereda),” Solos de Clarín, 354–360.

117 “Tipos trashumantes. Croquis a pluma, por don José Ma. de Pereda,” Revista Cantabro-Asturiana, 20 de agosto de 1877 (quoted from Miguel Artigas, “Un episodio desconocido de la juventud de Menéndez y Pelayo,” BBMP, x (1928), 295.

118 Loc. cit.

119 “Prólogo” to Los hombres de pro, lv. Although this prologue was written in 1884, in its discussion of individual works it is essentially a résumé of what the author had previously said when Pereda's novels first appeared; see his own statement, p. Iii; also Cossío, p. 5. The observations in the “prólogo” on El buey suelto are in fact a repetition of an article, “El buey suelto . . .,” in the Rev. de Esp., lxii (1878), 564–566, which is signed “X” and which is undoubtedly by Menéndez y Pelayo since much of its language is repeated in the “prólogo.”

120 See Cossío, 124.

121 See “Prólogo” to Los hombres de pro, lviii ff.

122 Ibid., lxii.

123 Ibid., lxviii.

124 “Observ. sobre la nov. contemp . . . .,” Rev. de Esp., xv (1870), 167.

125 Ibid., 170.

126 “Prólogo” (1875), Pepita Jiménez, 6 (Obr. comp. iv).

127 “A la Señora Condesa de Gomar,” Doña Luz, 5–6 (Obr. comp. iii).

128 Ibid., 8.

129 Luis Vidart (“La literatura docente, Doña Luz. . . .,” Rev. de Esp., lxviii (1879), 354) looks upon Valera's dedicatoria as ironical, but says that if the novelist did intend to uphold a “misticismo idealista,” he has fortunately achieved just the opposite.

130 “La familia de León Roch,” Solos de Clarín, 216.

131 “Los nov. esp. Fernán Caballero,” Rev. eur., xi (1878), 243.

132 Loc. cit.

133 Ibid., 248.

134 “Los nov. esp. D. Benito Pérez Galdós,” Rev. eur., xi (1878), 338.

135 Dedication of the first edition, “Al señor D. M. Menéndez y Pelayo,” El buey suelto (Madrid, 1899), p. 5.

136 Ibid., 7.

137 See Cossío, La obra lit. de Pereda, 117.

138 See Artigas, “De la correspondencia entre Pereda y Menéndez y Pelayo,” BBMP., xv (1933), 92.

139 “Discurso sobre la moral en el arte,” Juicos literarios y artísticos (Madrid, 1921), pp. 7–58.

140 Ibid., 24.

141 Loc. cit.

142 Ibid., 53.

143 “Rev. crít.,” Rev. contemp., viii (1877), 121–124.

144 “El realismo en el arte dramático” (summaries of addresses given in the Ateneo), Rev. eur., iv (1875), 116 (address of Montoro).

145 “Recuerdos de una polémica acerca de la novela de D. Juan Valera, Pepita Jiménez,” Rev. de Esp., liii (1876), 269–284.

146 Ibid., 269–270.

147 Revilla states in 1877 that there are two great problems which occupy literary men of the day and are constant subjects of debate: “Versa el uno sobre la naturaleza de la concepción artística, y el otro sobre el fin que la obra de arte puede proponerse, y dan lugar: el primero a dos grandes escuelas, la idealista y la realista; y el segundo a dos poderosas tendencias, la representada por los partidarios del arte docente, y la que se simboliza en la conocida fórmula: el arte por el arte.” See “La tendencia docente en la literatura contemporanea” (1877), Obras de D. Manuel de la Revilla (Madrid, 1883), p. 137. And he would make trascendencia in literature secondary to la belleza.

148 The following revistas, not cited in the footnotes, were examined and found to have little of importance to this paper and very little indeed in the way of criticism of the novel: Cartas españolas, 1831–32 (i–v); El Criticón, papel volante, 1835 (nos. 1–5); El Artista, 1835–36 (i-iii); No me olvides, 1837 (nos. 1–41); El Siglo XIX, 1837–38 (ser. 1–2); La Revista europea, 1837 (i–v); El Panorama, 1838–40 (ep. 1–2); El Entreacto, 1839; La Esperanza, 1839–40 (ser. 1–2)'; Revista gaditana, 1840 (i); Revista científica y literaria, 1847 (i); Revista europea, 1848–49 (i–iv); La Ilustración, 1849–57 (i–ix); Revista de España y sus provincias de ultramar, 1850 (i–viii); Album pintoresco de la Biblioteca Española, 1852–53; Revista española de ambos mundos, 1853–55 (i–iv); El Padre Cobos, 1855–56 (ep. 1–2); El Domingo, 1857; El Pensamiento de Valencia, 1857–58 (i–ii); El Criticón, papel volante, 1859 (nos. 6–8); El Genio del hogar, 1861–62 (i); El Cascabel, 1864–66; Revista hispano-americana, 1865 (i); El Averiguador, 1871.