Emily Bishop Milner and Dr. Dale Pratt, Spanish and Portuquese
My project had two phases: first, to translate approximately twenty-five pages of flowery and rather difficult Spanish into clear English; and second, to provide a commentary explaining the relationship of the translated prologue to other similar works within Spanish Romanticism as well as continental Romanticism. The translation phase of the project went smoothly. I used the technique of sentence patterning to separate the clauses in the somewhat convoluted sentences, both so that I could understand them and so that I could translate with faithful attention to the original text. The translation turned out well; because of the sentence patterning I was able to remain true to the style of the original text and keep a consistent tone throughout.
Writing the commentary (which is still in progress) proved more problematic. As I began to explore histories of Spanish Romanticism, I discovered that there is great controversy about the its nature, particularly its place within European Romanticism. The latter, particularly French and German Romanticism, is philosophically based upon the need to represent the spiritual through the material. This was manifested through a revival of Medieval literature and themes, which are spiritual in their symbolism, and which were deemed superior to the merely material Neoclassical themes. As I read the translated manifestos of A.W. Schlegel, Victor Hugo, and Heinrich Heine, I found the theme of uniting finite and infinite, body and soul, throughout. This underlying idea has many subsidiary aspects: the need for literature to accurately represent its own time and people, instead of imitating other models; the revival of Shakespeare, Cervantes, and other great writers who had used new literary techniques in defiance of classical rules; again, the use of Medieval themes, particularly Catholic and Christian ones; and finally, the regeneration of national literature through the study of the above mentioned themes and writers. Despite the diversity of these interpretations of Romanticism, the philosophical underpinnings are the same.
However, the common theme of uniting finite and infinite is not found in the manifestos of Spanish Romanticism. Spanish Romanticism takes the subsidiary aspects of continental Romanticism and focuses on them, ignoring the underlying philosophical juxtaposition of infinity with finitude. The focus on subsidiary aspects of continental Romanticism stems from its original introduction into Spain, by Böhl de Faber. Böhl’s purpose in quoting A.W. Schlegel was not to discuss the philosophy behind the Romantic School, but to cite Schlegel’s appreciation of the previously underrated Spanish authors Cervantes and Calderón. Later Spanish manifestos reflected this nationalistic tone. Agustín Durán’s stridently nationalistic manifesto, which is based upon Böhl’s work, calls for a regeneration of Spanish literature based upon the great writers of its past. Luigi Monteggia, writing in the journal El Europeo, stresses that literature should accurately represent relevant themes that reflect the writer’s time period and circumstances. Antonio Alcalá Galiano’s manifesto, a prologue to El Moro expósito by the Duque de Rivas, also focuses on the need for literature to represent its own time and country, instead of foolishly imitating classical models. Within the scope of European Romanticism, these are all lesser examples of an underlying principle; in Spain, however, the lesser examples became the underlying principle.
This is a controversial position to adopt, and perhaps inaccurate, if only because I have based my study primarily upon theoretical manifestos of Romanticism, and not upon actual literary works. Philip Silvers agree with the essence of what I have said. (1) Donald Shaw and E. A. Peers, among others, prefer instead to think that Spanish Romanticism did indeed adopt the “high” philosophical Romanticism of Europe, but that Spain=s excessive traditionalism promptly quashed it, substituting a conservative, “historical” Romanticism.(2)(3) Silver, on the other hand, maintains that Spain=s excessive traditionalism prevented “high” Romanticism from gaining hold in the first place. There is no scholarly consensus on the matter.
In the midst of this controversy, then, we must place Cañete’s Prologue. First, it is important to note that Cañete wrote retrospectively, in 1854, after the height of Romanticism had passed. However, in a way this retrospective manifesto can be more valuable in our search for a greater understanding of Spanish Romanticism than a manifesto written at its peak. It gives a glimpse of what Romanticism actually was to Cañete, instead of what it ought to be. Cañete bases his discussion of Spanish Romanticism upon Rivas=s work. Cañete rejoices in the profoundly Spanish nature of Rivas=s writing, stressing, like Monteggia and Alcalá Galiano, the importance of writing that accurately reflects Spain instead of mindlessly imitating classic texts. While Cañete discusses the importance of inspiration, and mentions A.W. Schlegel and Hugo, his primary theme is that of Rivas=s regeneration of Spanish national literature. He mentions Christianity only as he defends the role of divine Providence in Rivas=s Don Alvaro and El Moro expósito, not to point out the paradox, made possible by Christianity, of uniting body and soul. Indeed, Cañete’s work highlights the same points as the Spanish Romantic manifestos mentioned previously. The key difference is that, with the possible exception of Alcalá Galiano, whose manifesto was a prologue to one of the first actual literary works of Spanish Romanticism, the other manifestos that defined the Spanish perspective on Romanticism were written in a literary vacuum, before writers began to implement these ideas. Cañete, by contrast, wrote with the entire work of Spanish literature as a basis for his thought.
What should we make of the difference between European Romanticism and Spanish Romanticism? Rather than eliminate Spanish Romanticism from the canon of truly Romantic movements, it makes more sense to focus on what Spain did indeed contribute to the panorama of European Romanticism. If Rivas, as Cañete claims, best reflects Spain’s unique characteristics, then Rivas fulfilled the purpose of Romantic literature as defined by Monteggia and Alcalá Galiano. Interestingly enough, he also unwittingly participated in the key issue of European Romanticism: by encapsulating the essence of the Spanish people in his literature, he united their spirit with a tangible literary body, combining thus the infinite and the finite.