-
Notes
- Vanderbilt University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
[ 181 ] Notes Introduction 1. This is made explicit, for instance, in Astradur Eysteinsson’s The Concept of Modernism , as Anthony Geist and José Monleón have rightly noted. Fifteen years after that book, in 2007, Eysteinsson repeats the same gesture (6) in the introduction to the monumental Modernism, co-edited with Vivian Liska. Despite the inclusion of well-informed essays on Spanish American, Catalan, and Spanish modernisms in its second volume, Edward Mozejko, in the opening essay of the collection, has no qualms about citing a work from 1966, not just as his only scholarly source, but as an“irreplaceable source of information on Hispanic modernismo” (15; my emphasis), effectively disregarding forty years of scholarship on the subject. 2. Jameson, however, goes on to make the scandal less so by downgrading modernismo to“clearly enough a synonym for a style elsewhere identified as symbolism or Jugendstill ” (100) and lamenting the inability of Spanish to keep up with his own“precociousness ” by opposing modernismo to vanguardismo rather than, as in English, high modernism to avant-garde (it remains unclear why the adjective“high” makes such a big difference). Jameson also assumes, mistakenly, that there existed a“Generation of ’98” in Spain before the advent of Spanish American modernismo. 3. Here, I use“Latin America” only when the discussion pertains to the entire region. Otherwise, I will favor“Spanish America” (“Hispanoamérica” in Spanish) for two reasons: first, because this book deals mostly with Hispanic modernismo, a literary term that has a different meaning in the Portuguese-speaking world; second, because a large part of my argument has to do with transatlantic relations between Spanish America and Spain (but not necessarily Brazil and Portugal or Haiti and France, etc.), so that by using“Latin America” I would run the risk of absorbing and erasing the specificities of the Luso-Brazilian and other transatlantic contexts. Likewise, I have tried to avoid the terms“America” and“American” to refer to the United States (even when it has resulted in cumbersome phrasing) because in the nineteenth century , these terms in the Hispanic context designated Latin America or both North and South America, and because in this period and for the ethnoracial and political reasons I discuss in this book,“America” progressively came to designate only the United States while the South came to be known as“Latin America.” I have also tried to avoid using“North America” to refer to the United States, to prevent conflating that country with Canada, which in this period was still a colony of Britain. Finally, [ 182 ] Notes to Pages 2–9 “the Americas” designates the entire American continent (as it is usually considered in the Spanish-speaking world) or continents (as they are usually considered in the English-speaking world). 4. Spanish modernismo occupies a strange critical position that is, in many ways, a product of its history. Although born out of Spanish American modernismo and, thus, part of a larger Hispanic phenomenon, Spanish modernismo has been studied largely within the European context and as part of European literature, even when the other European critical traditions have consistently ignored or downplay its existence. For instance, Bradbury and McFarlane’s classic Modernism: A Guide to European Literature, 1890–1930—which, despite its title, includes the United States— mentions a few Spanish writers, even if briefly, but no Spanish American writer. Thus, Jiménez, Unamuno, and García Lorca are included, but not Rubén Darío, who in many ways made the writing of the other three possible. 5. I use“literary authority” and“cultural authority” interchangeably throughout this book because, for all intents and purposes, they were synonymous at the time. This is so because of the centrality of literature and language to the concept of national (and international) cultural production in the nineteenth century, and more specifically because of their centrality in the formulation of national identities. Literature and language were thought to be the expression of a people in a much more forceful and clear way than were any other arts. Nonetheless, a study of the state of transatlantic relations in the artistic and other cultural fields is also necessary and would complement the analysis I present in this book. 6. “Francophiles” (afrancesados) and“patriots” was a division generated by the Napoleonic invasion of the Iberian Peninsula. Although the word afrancesado predates the invasion, it was during the war that it became an entirely pejorative term to denote those who had supported the Napoleonic court or those...