Karl Christian Friedrich Krause and His Influence in the Hispanic World (review)

Karl Christian Friedrich Krause and His Influence in the Hispanic World. By O. CARLOS STOETZER. Lateinamerikanische Forschungen 25. Koln: Böhlau Verlag, 1998. Appendixes. Notes. Bibliography. xiv, 546 pp. Cloth.

Historians have long recognized the impact of Krausist philosophy on nineteenth-century Spanish political thought. Based on the ideas of German Romantic Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (1781-1831), Krausism became the dominant intellectual force in Spain during the years 1854-74, profoundly shaping Spanish liberalism. Equally well known is Krausism's later influence on Argentine Radical leader Hipólito Yrigoyen, whose domestic and international policies were often inspired by Krausist principles. In this ambitious and comprehensive work, O. Carlos Stoetzer argues that Krausism's influence in the Iberian world extended well beyond these two cases, and left a profound mark on the intellectual history of several Latin American nations, including Brazil. (The book's title is misleading, since Stoetzer covers both Brazil and Portugal.)

Stoetzer begins his study with the philosophy itself, examining the ideas of Krause and his most prominent disciples. Readers with a less than passionate interest in early-nineteenth-century Romantic philosophy may find some of this discussion overly detailed, but the background Stoetzer provides is essential for understanding why Krausism enjoyed such a following in the Iberian world. As Stoetzer argues, the philosophy appealed for a number of reason: its strong emphasis on ethics; its role as an intellectual bridge to the rest of Europe; and, most convincingly, because it combined ideas consonant with traditional Catholic precepts (an organic vision of society, a concern with social rights and a belief in God) with liberalism's respect for individual freedom, free inquiry, and legal equality. Thus for nineteenth-century Spaniards, Krausism offered an ethically based middle path between classical liberalism and Catholic obscurantism. In Latin America, where Krausism was most important in the early twentieth century, the philosophy provided an attractive alternative to the individualism of unfettered capitalism and the collectivism of left-wing ideologies.

Stoetzer identifies two avenues by which Krausist ideas entered Latin America. First were the translated works of Krause and those of his disciples, especially German legal scholar Heinrich Ahrens and Belgium philosopher Guillaume Tiberghien. Second, and somewhat later, were the works of Spanish Krausists such as Julián Sanz del Rio, Francisco Giner de los Rios and Gumersindo de Azcárate, who provided an additional impulse to Latin American Krausist thought in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

In documenting the impact of Krausist ideas in Latin America, Stoetzer faces the challenge of distinguishing Krausism's influence from that of other currents of idealistic thought. As he notes, even in Spain, Krausism was not a unified, well-defined philosophy, and successive generations of Spanish Krausists incorporated other strands of German idealism and even Positivism into their thought. Pinning down Krausist influences in Latin America is even more difficult, since nowhere on the continent did a true Krausist school emerge. Complicating matters further was the fact that many eminent Krausists, including Yrigoyen and Uruguay's José Batlle, did not openly identify themselves with the philosophy. For the most part, Stoetzer succeeds admirably in tracing the sometimes obscure connections between Krausism and the ideas of various Latin American intellectuals. Taking care not to overstate his case, he readily concedes the importance of other philosophical influences and qualifies his claims when the evidence is inconclusive.

Stoetzer also addresses, albeit obliquely, the problem of Krausism's variable impact in Latin America. Why, for example, was Krausism so much stronger in Argentina than in Chile or Colombia? According to Stoezter, in cases such as Argentina and Uruguay, Krausism's way had been prepared by the "earlier penetration of the Romantic spirit" (p. 312). Readers seeking a fuller explanation might object to such reasoning, both because it begs the question of why these countries had proved receptive to earlier Romantic currents and because Stoezter seems reluctant to...