El no importa de Espaa y La Verdad en el potro by Francisco Santos

Review by: Monroe Z. Hafter

Modern Philology, Vol. 73, No. 2 (Nov., 1975), pp. 192-194
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/436338 .
Accessed: 16/03/2012 18:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Modern Philology.

http://www.jstor.org
 192 Modern Philology(November 1975)

A finalnote: the beauty of structuralistmethod is that it renderspsycho-

logical analysisunnecessary.There was probablyno reason forFormand Trans-
formationto referto gestaltpsychology,a fieldof theorywhichis not invulnerable
to attackfrom"hard-line"perceptionists, includingthose whose workstemsfrom
the gestaltapproach. Similarly,there may be difficultiesin some of Johnson's
assertionsabout whathappens whenwe look back over a work to give it "retro-
spectiveform,"or forward,to give "progressiveform."But these are complexi-
ties awaiting a furtherdevelopmentthroughan essentiallysound and always
instructiveformalistmethod.

Angus Fletcher/City of New York

University

El no importade Espahiay La Verdad en el potro

Francisco Santos/Estudio y edici6n de Julio Rodriguez Pu'rtolas. London:

Tamesis Books, 1973. Pp. lxxv+ 205.

Francisco Santos enjoyedfarmore esteemin the late seventeenthand eighteenth

centuriesthan he has since, but he repaysour presentattentionby offering in his
several works a livelyperceptionof what those years of Spanish decadence were
like. Julio Rodriguez Pu6rtolashas writtena sixty-four-page introductionto his
edition of Santos's El no importade Espanla (1667) and La Verdaden el potro
(1671) whichbringsinto sharperfocusthe contemporaryscene. The editorunder-
scores how suspicion, cynicism,and fierceambition for social rank and for
moneywere dissolvinga sense of communityand how Santos, at the same time,
clungto mythsof a Christianstate.
Rodriguez Pu6rtolashas succeeded in makingSantos a far more interesting
author than one mighthave anticipated,but his effortson occasion lead the
reader to question whetherhe mightbe forcinghis point. An example is the
followingassertionwhich he bases on a thesisof Am6ricoCastro and which is
apropos of the gossipingabout Jewishblood which surroundedany man who
reached out for privilegeand wealth at the court: "Lo mismo sucede con el
intelectualismo,ejemplificadocon los casos de Alfonsoel Sabio y del marques de
Villena. El primero 'supo ajustar el movimientode trepidaci6ny no supo el
goviernode sus reynos,'por ello aconseja Santos dedicarse'al arado antes que al
estudio; a aventarparvas y no a hojear libros'.. . , con lo cual, de nuevo aparece
la figuradel campesino [i.e., analfabeto] como modelo ideal" (p. lxiv). Several
thingsare amiss here.In thefirstplace, Santos in theearlierquotationis plagiariz-
ing fromthe fourthempresa of Diego Saavedra Fajardo's Idea de un principe
(1640). There the contentwas the importanceof practicaloverspeculativeknowl-
edge and theavoidance ofextremesin theeducationof a king; thiswas a common
motive for citing Alfonso el Sabio's learning. Second, Saavedra in the same
section,and many otherauthors of advice to princesand nobles, recommended
extensivereadings.Finally,thereis no antiintellectualism in Santos's text. He is
discussinghow political leaders do not heed the suffering of the poor-and for
 Book Reviews 193

thatreason should visitthe threshingfloors;instead,theyso concentrateon their

own gain as to exclude all otheractivity,even literarypursuits("Ma's dulce es la
conversaci6nde las Musas que la del logro; mAsvale assistira las audiencias que
a los almacenes" [p. 17]). Castro found suggestivetextsto connectsuspicion of
scientificand philosophical learningwithanimus toward Jewishblood, but that
is notthesituationin theSantos passage.
Anotherof Castro's ideas is thatmen in the Siglo de Oro felta need to fortify
their inner dignity,to confirmtheir identity--"sosiego"--againstmurmuring
detractors--"opinio6n"-whowereever readyto blacken a familyname withthe
charge of impureblood. However, I doubt that Rodriguez Pu6rtolasis rightin
relatingthisline of thoughtto Felipe IV's consummatecalm on receivingnews of
devastatingpoliticalor militarylosses (pp. lxiv-lxv).JoseDeleito y Pifiuela,from
whom the editor quotes an account of the king's undisturbedgravity,was, in
effect,contrastingFelipe's cultivatedpublic demeanor with his agitated private
life and his passionate nature. Hence, several themesenterhere and should be
isolated forstudy.The conventionallesson to the princenot to giveventto anger
or sorrowis separatefromthe questions of inner peace or sensitivity to national
losses. For example,Santos's beloved model, Baltasar GraciAn,always counseled
dissemblance;but as to royalresponsiveness,he wrotein El politicodonFernando
el Cat6lico (1640): "Un principe sensible, que le piquen, que le lastimen las
p6rdidasen lo vivo del coraz6n. Hicieronalgunos paradoja raz6n de Estado de la
indolencia,y magnanimidadde la insensibilidad."It may be wise also to distin-
guishseveralmeaningsof opini6n,one beingmaliciousgossip; another,dealt with
by Saavedra in empresa46, is theself-serving viewsdirectedat princesbyflatterers
and intriguers.A thirdis the beliefsof foolishpeople who shortsightedly yieldto
greed forimmediate to
gain, desperation, or to unprincipledindulgence; but these
are misjudgments, as Saavedra admonishesin empresa32, above which the ruler
must raise his sights.Santos has these stoic teachingsin mind when he speaks
of the "generosa constancia en los nobles pechos" (p. 37) as a bulwarkagainst
adversefortune.
Rodriguez Puertolasis exact in treatingtheabhorrenceof Jewishor Moorish
contaminationand theconceptionsof a Christianpoliticsor economicsunderthe
rubric"Los mitos del casticismohispano" (although the last two are generally
European ideas). He mighthave broughtout more cogently,however,the trite
natureof theseconceptsin the 1660s and 1670s,pointingout whatis stale in their
repetitionand what changes in emphasis mightbe noted. When not repeating
others' words, does Santos's moralizingso exactly follow the quotation from
Evaristo-and not Gustavo-Correa which appears on page xxvii?
I regretthat Rodriguez Pu6rtolasdid not mark in the two works what was
plagiarized fromGraciAn--nearlyseventypages fromLa Verdaden el potro,he
tells us-or from Saavedra Fajardo (and not SuArez Figueroa as mistakenly
recordedon p. xxxii) for El no importa.The identification of source textswould
have enabled the editor to point out where Santos is a passive followerof his
models or wherehe put his own stamp on the borrowedmaterials.Had original
versionsbeen kept more in mind,RodriguezPu6rtolaswould have avoided some
nexactness,such as the proposals thatversesof Guill6nPeraza werea source for
194 Modern Philology(November 1975)

a Santos image (p. xxxiv) or that Santos documentedfromSpanish historyhis

faithin the traditionalunityof religionand policy (p. lxxi). Both, however,un-
mistakablycome fromSaavedra Fajardo's masterpiece,empresas3 (as already
observed in the article in BH [BulletinHispanique]-not, mistakenlyRH-61
[1959]: 9) and 24, respectively.Finally, a strikinglyoriginal contributionof
Santos, the varied uses of the refrain"no importa,"is passed over in silence; but
perhaps a comment on this will form part of the editor's projected study of
Santos's style.
In preparingthe two works for publication,Rodriquez Puertolas followed
"la primeraedici6n disponible de cada una de dichas obras, si bien teniendo
tambien a la vista otras posteriores."While on page lxxv he indicatesthat the
firsteditionof El no importawas accessibleto him,the "A quien leyere"on page
6 speaks of the work as "afiadido y enmendado en esta segunda impresi6ny en
todo mejorado Since thereis no criticalapparatus, the readercannot dis-
.... "
cover what has been added or improved or whetherall copies from 1667 are
identical.Surelya firsteditionof La Verdadwas obtainablein photocopyand, in
the absence of any explanation to the contrary,would have been preferableto
the 1679 version given. There are no footnotesto the two texts,and puzzling
referencesor figuresof speech are not clarified.An irritatingpractice in the
lengthyintroductionis the givingof page referencesto quotations fromEl no
importaand La Verdadaccordingto seventeenth-or eighteenth-century editions
and not accordingto theTamesis text;thismakes it difficult to findtheinteresting
passages theeditordiscusses.
In sum, thereare many worthwhilepages in these two works,and whether
one looks backwardto the Siglo de Oro or forwardto theeighteenthcentury,one
will studythemwithprofit.Althoughhavingsome reservationsabout thiswork,
I am indebtedto the editorforhis guidanceand to the Tamesis house forhaving
made thevolume available.

Monroe Z. Hafter/University
of Michigan

Lettersof Sir George Etherege

FrederickBracher,ed./Berkeleyand Los Angeles: Universityof CaliforniaPress,
1974. Pp. xxvi+ 324.

It used to be the fashionto dismiss Sir George Etheregeas littlemore than an

idle amateurin both his professions-diplomacyand playwriting. The new letters
in ProfessorBracher's edition do not much dim the pictureof Etheregeas the
Restorationmodel foreasy conduct and conversation,settingthe styleforpoets
and playwrightslike Wycherley,Congreve,Pope, and even Dryden-whose pose
of idleness was as affectedas Etherege's gracefulnegligencewas natural. The
newlyprintedcorrespondenceadds instead unexpecteddimensionsto Etherege's
character: we see him as surprisinglyeager to advance King James's interests,