Angel Ganivet's Suicide
Angel Ganivet's suicide at the age of 32 brought to an abrupt close the development of an innovative writer and thinker. Although necessarily limited in number, his publications had a significant impact on his contemporaries and on the development of the essay in Spain. His writings challenge the established generic borders in keeping with turn-of-the-century experimentation with limits and traditional definitions. He combines the essay and the epistolary form in Cartas finlandesas (1898; Letters from Finland) and in the posthumous El porvenir de España (1912; The future of Spain), and takes the hybrid form of travel essay and social commentary in a second posthumous work, Hombres del norte (1905; Men from the north). Ganivet writes from the
…show more content…
stance of an outsider, analyzing Spain from his diplomatic residences in Finland and Belgium and critiquing European culture from his vantage point as a Spaniard with ties to Africa and Latin America. In his bestknown essay, Idearium español (1897; Spain: An Interpretation ), Ganivet breaks with the prevailing rationalist, scientific perspective to analyze the history and future of Spain by means of a new multivoiced, contradictory, and subjective discourse.
Spain: An Interpretation and Ganivet's other essays incorporate a multitude of competing voices and discourses that represent the tensions marking Spain and the rest of the world in the transition from traditional to modern society. His texts introduce terms and arguments drawn from 19th-century debates over Catholicism, positivism, imperialism, and rationalism and interweave them in a complex discursive play that undermines and redefines tradition while suggesting new forms of thinking and writing. The text speaker in Spain: An Interpretation appropriates a positivist, determinist characterization of nations according to their geographic identification as island, peninsula, or continent, but then deconstructs the stability of these classifications by pointing out that Spain, a peninsula, has erroneously adopted behaviors appropriate to an island nation. In a similar vein, the speaker continuously invokes history and the 19th-century notion of historical determinism, only to subvert it by suggesting that Spain's past was an error, a deviation from its true nature. The present does not mirror the past or develop naturally from it, but rather confronts it as an alien other.
Ganivet's texts display a disjunctive vision of history, as a process marked by violent shifts and discontinuity. This view coincides with a repudiation of rationalism and the adoption of a style that eschews a logical development of ideas and a clear exposition of thought. Ganivet's essays privilege a nonlinear exposition, with no clear declaration of purpose and constant changes in topic without prior explanation. The various sections of Idearium español have no titles and no clear section or subsection divisions. The narrator repeatedly verbalizes a lack of concern with consistency and logic and expresses a preference for " ideas redondas " (round ideas) over " ideas picudas " (sharp, pointed ideas). The latter are defined as categorical, with no contradictions and no shading, and consequently lead to conflict and disagreement, while round ideas allow for the fusion of opposites and welcome paradoxical overlappings and irregularities, creating possibilities for love and union. The acceptance and even cultivation of contradiction produces texts that defy definition and force the reader to suspend judgment and adopt an open and flexible position.
Attempts to define a clearly delineated ideological posture in Ganivet's essays fail in the face of a purposeful irrationalism and consistent shifts in position. For some readers, the repudiation of positivism, capitalism, and Kantian pure reason reflects the failure of the Enlightenment to take root in Spain and leads to an antirational stance bordering on fascism. However, Ganivet's redefinitions of history and his insistent rejection of a logic that justifies injustice and of a capitalism that promotes war can also be read as an answer to the crisis of modernity that continues to find voice in contemporary thought. Furthermore, his unrelenting attack on imperialism and respect for different cultures and values anticipate late 20th-century views. During the height of the Cuban struggle to win independence from Spain and during the years when European imperialist dominance over Africa and Asia were viewed as proof of Western superiority over the rest of the world, Ganivet's writings proposed new, nonimperialist forms of leadership. Idearium español argues that the greatness of a nation does not depend on territorial extension, and calls on Spain to initiate a new postcolonial order that is without precedent in world history. The text speaker makes use of nationalistic discourse in order to combat it, calling on national pride but toward a new end.
The essays of Angel Ganivet offer new modalities of thinking and writing. His texts evade clear categorization in keeping with his rejection of 19th-century rationalist and scientific discourse and thought. The organization of ideas follows a circular pattern, with the reintroduction of previously mentioned ideas, but with significant (albeit subtle) variations.
Through a complex interweaving of inherited discourse and modern variations, Ganivet's essays seek to rewrite the pas and create new forms of cultural coexistence.
by Mark P. Del Mastro The Citadel
"Es el caso que al hablar de Ganivet algunos le han llamado precursor,... lo digo redondamente y sin ambajes, que si entre Ganivet y yo hubo influencia mutua, fué mucho mayor la mía sobre él que la de él sobre mí [sic]."
(Unamuno, Obras completas 4: 955-56, from Salamanca, February 1912) The question of precursors of literary movements is complicated by the impossibility--and perhaps absurdity--of identifying a sole figure. Over the years, the "Generation of '98" has also suffered the same problems of definition. Of the possible precursors--generally designated by their ideological influence over the movement or "generation"--Angel Ganivet's name began to surface predominantly at the beginning of the 20th century as a result of two events: 1) the commemoration in the Ateneo de Madrid on 29 November 1903 of the 5th anniversary of Ganivet's death and 2) the publication of his Idearium español in August of 1897, which initiated critical interest in his works.1 Unamuno, however, protested this new focus on Ganivet, especially the position of Carlos Malagarriga who claimed that Ganivet was the true spiritual source of contemporary--early 20th century--Spanish intellects. Perhaps partially due to his own written protests, Unamuno's reputation as ideological "father" of the noventayochistas remained. But certainly reinforcing this distinction was En torno al casticismo (first published as separate essays in the journal La España Moderna in 1895, two years prior to the Idearium),2 one of the first recognized works of the Generation that systematically and philosophically proposed solutions for the social and ideological crises of "fin de siglo" Spain. Because the Idearium and ETC share similar '98 principles, the appearance of numerous comparative studies was logical.3 Unfortunately, few recognized the importance of Ganivet's doctoral dissertation, España filosófica contemporánea, a work that also presented '98 concepts but was written in 1889, six years prior to the circulation of ETC. The only study that approaches a comparison of EFC and ETC is Donald Shaw's book La Generación del 98, although Shaw seems to leave the door open intentionally for others to undertake the task. The following analysis will attempt to enter this open door and revindicate Ganivet as one of the important precursors of "La generación del 98." The primary reason for scant comparative studies is EFC was not published until 1930 in Ganivet's Obras completas; consequently, for critics it has been unjustified to consider EFC influential in contemporary Spanish thought, including Unamuno's. Then why and how can one claim the contrary? In Madrid in May and June of 1891, during the competitive examinations for the chairs of Greek at the Universities of Granada and Salamanca respectively, Ganivet and Unamuno were introduced and, as Unamuno himself explains, they met and conversed daily for about 6 weeks (Unamuno, Obras completas 4: 954). Although he observes that Ganivet was "silencioso de niño y de mozo" (Obras completas 10: 175) during these cordial meetings, Unamuno admits that his friend did make "observaciones de cuando en cuando" (175). Despite Unamuno's denial, mutual influence was certainly possible, and as will be demonstrated in this analysis, a strong argument exists for Ganivet's impact on Unamuno's thinking, thereby reinforcing the claim that Ganivet represents a precursor of both Unamuno's ideas and those of the Generation of 1898.4 As the title suggests, EFC addresses the philosophical problem of Spain with applications to the country's society of the period. According to Ganivet, Spain is in decay because a fragmented and inappropriate philosophical base has prevented the proliferation of beneficial ideas. This fragmentation is due to the Spanish adoption of multiple foreign ideologies--the "medios puramente externos" (EFC 591)--such as Krausism, positivism, materialism and social Darwinism of Haeckel, all of which fail to share a collective and uniquely Spanish mission. For Ganivet, the possibility of social reform is found in a collective ideological mission that begins with a system of philosophical education focused on the directive ideas (592), or mother ideas (598), and a combination of common philosophy, or "filosofía vulgar," and scientific philosophy, or "filosofía científica" (592). Common philosophy, Ganivet explains, is distinct from scientific philosophy--"los medios externos" or the "sistemas contradictorios" (EFC 609)--by forming part of the Spanish essence--the common cultural trait of Spain--that corresponds to all Spaniards. According to the author, it is:
...la que carece de un fondo sistemático u ordenado y una organización completa; …la que es patrimonio de todos los hombres, la que inspira la vida de la sociedad y forma lo que generalmente se denomina medio ambiente, es decir, la idea que flota en todos los espíritus e imprime cierto sello de unidad a cada época histórica." (593)
This is akin to the notion of tradition: customs and ideas that originate from the psychological union of people with the land that surrounds them; ideas and customs already founded and passed along to their predecessors.5 For Ganivet, it is critical to initiate educational reform with both special consideration to and the implementation of this collective ideology. Nevertheless, the author believes that people ignore this ideology when learning scientific philosophy, the contradictory systems. Isolated from common philosophy, the scientific is: contenida en explicaciones que no traspasan las paredes de las aulas universitarias, o en volúmenes que rara vez son sacados del estante de la biblioteca, no puede ser utilizada con otra representación que con la suya propia... como expresión de un núcleo más o menos numeroso de individuos. (EFC 593)
Ganivet claims that all philosophical frameworks not originating from Spanish society, or common philosophy, pertain exclusively to the scientific. Individuals that adopt the scientific ignore their common philosophy and consequently fail to achieve results that will benefit collective society; in this case, it is egotism that motivates them. Each social institution in Spain, as around the globe, is motivated by the group's special interests, which Ganivet labels as "las ideas particulares" (592) and the "interés particular" (612). However, the "ideas particulares" are not related to the "ideas madres" mentioned previously. While the mother ideas serve to benefit all Spaniards and represent the harmonic union of common and scientific philosophies, the "ideas particulares" benefit exclusively distinct groups and are the result of the "divorce" of these two philosophies. The complementing presence of selfishness naturally leads to the particular ideas and prevents the achievement of the mother ideas or the "grandes ideales" (608).6 Motivated solely by their individual interests, Spaniards are incapable of identifying their common philosophy, thereby missing the critically important mother ideas. Because of the false promise of utopia, Spanish society seeks purely external mechanisms or ideas. The resulting condition of this fruitless quest is "indeterminación" (EFC 611), "la apatía" (602) and "letargo mental" (608), and Spain is rendered an "enfermo... débil y postrado" (653). The author claims that the conflict among the numerous external ideas--ideologies originating outside of Spain--inevitably confuse the Spaniards, ultimately creating indifference, apathy and a mentally hampered state. Ganivet identifies this condition later as "la abulia" in a letter dated 18 February 1893 to his friend Francisco Navarro y Ledesma:
El temor de perder las ideas es un signo mortal; no es que las ideas se van a perder, es que se va a escapar de nuestro dominio la inteligencia, que no podremos tener ideas cuando queramos porque la inteligencia no quiera fijarse en los objetos. Esta aversión es muy frecuente en los tontos, porque en ellos la inteligencia no tiene posibilidad de apropiarse sinnúmero de cosas; es también síntoma de la abulia o debilitación de la voluntad, porque en este padecimiento la vida retrograda, no pudiendo vencer la pereza, que le impide continuar asimilándose elementos nuevos para renovar la vida al compás del tiempo. …La causa de la enfermedad es la falta de atención (sic). (Epistolario 26-27)
The origin of this clinical metaphor is the reference adopted by the French psychologist Théodule Armand Ribot in the late 19th century. Nevertheless, Ganivet's use of "la abulia" to diagnose metaphorically the condition of his country echoes within the works of several Generation of '98 writers and contemporaries such as Azorín, Baroja, Maeztu, Cajal and Machado.7 As previously noted, Ganivet's envisioned remedy for the "abulia" is achieved by the reconciliation of the common and scientific philosophies. When the scientific establishes roots in Spanish tradition and its "realidad," or common philosophy, this union will reflect the "ideas directivas," the only solution for successful social reform in Spain. To initiate this process, however, a Ganivetian "maestro" (EFC 668) must determine the appropriate combination of common and scientific philosophies for each individual of society. The "maestro" is responsible for presenting the mother ideas to each person or student and, at the same time, the student must trust in the good will of the "maestro" in order to adopt without reservations these new ideals. Also, the "maestro" must act with a pure love--free of self interest--and be indifferent with the pupil. This indifference, however, is not of the abulic sense. Ganivet refers to an indifference that connotes unselfishness: one's de-emphasis of the material, the rejection of surpassing fellow man, and not taking advantage of him. Ganivetian indifference and love are the qualities of assuring that the "maestro" does not intervene with selfish and negative motives. The process of obtaining new directive ideas should be realized individually and not collectively because the inappropriate acquisition of generic ideas by all members of society will again lead to the period's problem with scientific philosophy. All citizens are unique and, consequently, their intellectual needs--the individual aptitudes of EFC (673)--vary. These distinct aptitudes should be recognized and cultivated by the "maestro" in harmony and conjunction with Spanish history, tradition and reality; in other words, with common philosophy. In this manner, the "maestro" will not commit the same egotistical error reflected in special interests because the mother ideas --although containing some unique characteristics-- will be founded upon Spain's history, tradition and contemporary reality. Parallel to EFC is Unamuno's ETC. Of the concepts most widely recognized from this work, perhaps the most notable is "la intrahistoria" (56).8 Within this notion, which Unamuno also terms "eterna esencia" and "la tradición eterna," is the remedy for Spain's abulic condition. Unamuno writes: "Esa vida intrahistórica, silenciosa y continua como el fondo mismo del mar, es la sustancia del progreso, la verdadera tradición, la tradición eterna, no la tradición mentira que se suele ir a buscar al pasado enterrado en libros y papeles, y monumentos, y piedras" (28). Further ahead in the same series of articles, Unamuno elaborates his definition: "La tradición eterna es lo que deben buscar los videntes de todo pueblo para elevarse a la luz, haciendo conciente en ellos lo que en el pueblo es inconciente, para guiarle así mejor [sic]" (29). Here are clear echoes of Ganivet's common philosophy in the "vida intrahistórica" and the "tradición eterna," concepts that for both authors are essential for society's guidance by the directive ideas explained by Ganivet. Without these guides, society is misdirected and without possibilities for progress. According to Unamuno, "La tradición eterna es el fondo del ser del hombre mismo. El hombre, esto es lo que hemos de buscar en nuestra alma (ETC 30)… Hay que ir a la tradición eterna, madre del ideal, que no es otra cosa que ella misma reflejada en el futuro" (34). Like Ganivet, Unamuno emphasizes the need to discover the "madre del ideal" or "idea directiva" to progress, and he explains this with the complicated notion he labels "el nimbo," "un fondo de continuidad... que envuelve a lo precedente con lo subsiguiente" (ETC 60), like an eternal sea of knowledge that unites past, present and future of society's ideas. With this concept, Unamuno alludes to the Spaniards' individual efforts of turning inward to discover the "la tradición eterna"/"la intrahistoria" to unite this with surrounding/contemporary reality. In the author's time, people do not achieve the "nimbo" or directive idea because their lives are isolated in a "presente momento histórico" (ETC 27)--or Ganivet's scientific philosophy--which is not associated or linked to the eternal tradition--Ganivet's common philosophy--in a continuum. This "presente momento histórico" is "la superficie del mar, una superficie que se hiela y cristaliza en los libros y registros... " (27); like Ganivet's scientific philosophy it is found separated on library shelves (EFC 593). Similar to Ganivet, Unamuno describes the treatment of this history, of "los libros y registros," as disassociated from man's eternal tradition, or common philosophy; in other words, that which forms part of the Spaniard's essence. Explaining this problem in Spain, Ganivet refers to scientific philosophy, which is parallel to Unamuno's "tradición mentira," the symbolic sea's surface. As noted previously, Ganivet states that the divorce or separation of scientific and common philosophies is the main cause of Spain's demise. This common philosophy, or Unamuno's "tradición eterna," is distinct from scientific philosophy. When both ideologies are linked is when the mother idea or Unamunian "nimbo" will come forth. The "intrahistoria" is progressive, like the directive idea, when it is associated with present reality. For Unamuno, a sound example of disassociation is that which exists between literature (corresponding to "intrahistoria") and science (corresponding to reality or the "presente momento histórico"). Both Unamuno and Ganivet recognize the same result of this ideological separation: egotism and the subsequent "abulia." The Unamunian ideas of egotism and love also align with Ganivet's.
For both authors, selfishness completely inhibits personal and social reforms by preventing the indispensable component of love. In the views of Ganivet and Unamuno, love is a pure and noble sentiment manifested in the help of others and the control of egotistical tendencies. The person who adopts this ideal love will prove a formidable collaborator in the utopian missions postulated by the two authors. For Unamuno, "El fuerte, el radicalmente fuerte, no puede ser egoísta: el que tiene fuerza de sobra, la saca para darla" (ETC 46). The ideas of force and power go hand-in-hand with love, and not egoism. By exhibiting this same quality, the Ganivetian "maestro" is essentially the same "radicalmente fuerte" of Unamuno: a selfless individual whose pure love results in his/her pupils' attainment of the mother ideas, as explained previously in terms of Ganivetian indifference. In Unamuno's eyes, love itself makes possible the true success of ideal reform and the collective, individual benefits of the Spanish people: "A través del amor llegamos a las cosas con nuestro ser propio" (24). These "cosas" are the ideas or the superficial history found in the "libros y registros" but that are achieved and understood appropriately by means of "nuestro ser propio," in other words, by means of the "intrahistoria" and the eternal tradition of the people. Unamuno believes love establishes the union …show more content…
between "intrahistoria" and science, while Ganivet sees love as the first step to reconciling common and scientific philosophies. Nevertheless, the actual separation of these two ideologies results in the Spanish condition that Ganivet labels as "letargo mental" (EFC 608) and "abulia" (Epistolario 26), and that Unamuno calls "el marasmo" (ETC 125) and "la abulia" (138). With these akin clinical metaphors, both authors view Spain as ill. In the case of the "abulia," Ganivet selects a medical term from a French psychologist--as previously noted--to describe the hampered mental state of the afflicted Spaniards. With marasmus, Unamuno refers to a physical condition: the chronic illness of semi-starvation typical in children suffering reduced growth. In advanced stages, marasmus is exhibited as muscle deterioration and the absence of subcutaneous fat. For Unamuno, it is a problem of a Spain malnourished by scarce new ideas: "No hay corrientes vivas internas en nuestra vida intelectual y moral; esto es un pantano de agua estancada, no corriente de manantial" (ETC 132). In Ganivet's view, Spain's condition is perpetuated by the overabundance of inappropriate, non-Spanish ideals. Contemporary ideology, for both authors, is insufficient to rehabilitate the country. Both Unamuno and Ganivet believe that ideological rehabilitation has its key step in the association between reality, the "presente momento histórico"/"la filosofía científica" and "la intrahistoria"/"la filosofía vulgar." However, in contrast to Ganivet, Unamuno does not propose that this reform be achieved through a "maestro," but rather by the Spaniards themselves.
For Unamuno, the "europeización" of Spain is critical for initiating this social and intellectual process since Spanish ideas are stagnated. Together with the attempt of each citizen to discover their "tradiciones eternas," Spaniards should Europeanize themselves. They must join the process of internal discovery with contemporary European ideas in order to stimulate and enhance the immobile intellectual current of the present: "Con el aire de fuera regenero mi sangre, no respirando el que exhalo" (ETC 145). Ganivet views Spain's crisis as caused precisely by the invasion of foreign ideologies. What must be done, therefore, is reduce external influences in favor of the dominance of Spanish ideals. Foreign philosophies can only be implanted in Spain if they conform to the country's contemporary common philosophy. Of all the similarities noted in this study, it is this point that most distinguishes the proposed reforms of the
authors. Typical of Unamuno's proud demeanor is his insistence that his ideological influence on Ganivet was greater than Ganivet's on him during their "tertulias" in Madrid in 1891. However, Unamuno's assertion is challenged by the fact that two years earlier--in 1889--Ganivet had already outlined ideas in his doctoral thesis that Unamuno later presents in ETC (1895). Ganivet, and not Unamuno, first explained ideas that appear, although with different terminologies, in numerous works that follow by Unamuno, Azorín, Baroja and Maeztu, among others. The literary impact of Unamuno on his contemporaries should not be de-emphasized, but it is certainly possible that Ganivet discussed the regenerationist ideas of EFC with Unamuno during their encounters in Madrid in 1891 and, consequently, Unamuno expounded some of those concepts in ETC. Despite opposing views such as José Luis Abellán's, and in light of the ideological comparisons realized in this study, Ganivet should be revindicated as one of the important predecessors of Unamuno and the Generation of 1898.
stance of an outsider, analyzing Spain from his diplomatic residences in Finland and Belgium and critiquing European culture from his vantage point as a Spaniard with ties to Africa and Latin America. In his bestknown essay, Idearium español (1897; Spain: An Interpretation ), Ganivet breaks with the prevailing rationalist, scientific perspective to analyze the history and future of Spain by means of a new multivoiced, contradictory, and subjective discourse.
Spain: An Interpretation and Ganivet's other essays incorporate a multitude of competing voices and discourses that represent the tensions marking Spain and the rest of the world in the transition from traditional to modern society. His texts introduce terms and arguments drawn from 19th-century debates over Catholicism, positivism, imperialism, and rationalism and interweave them in a complex discursive play that undermines and redefines tradition while suggesting new forms of thinking and writing. The text speaker in Spain: An Interpretation appropriates a positivist, determinist characterization of nations according to their geographic identification as island, peninsula, or continent, but then deconstructs the stability of these classifications by pointing out that Spain, a peninsula, has erroneously adopted behaviors appropriate to an island nation. In a similar vein, the speaker continuously invokes history and the 19th-century notion of historical determinism, only to subvert it by suggesting that Spain's past was an error, a deviation from its true nature. The present does not mirror the past or develop naturally from it, but rather confronts it as an alien other.
Ganivet's texts display a disjunctive vision of history, as a process marked by violent shifts and discontinuity. This view coincides with a repudiation of rationalism and the adoption of a style that eschews a logical development of ideas and a clear exposition of thought. Ganivet's essays privilege a nonlinear exposition, with no clear declaration of purpose and constant changes in topic without prior explanation. The various sections of Idearium español have no titles and no clear section or subsection divisions. The narrator repeatedly verbalizes a lack of concern with consistency and logic and expresses a preference for " ideas redondas " (round ideas) over " ideas picudas " (sharp, pointed ideas). The latter are defined as categorical, with no contradictions and no shading, and consequently lead to conflict and disagreement, while round ideas allow for the fusion of opposites and welcome paradoxical overlappings and irregularities, creating possibilities for love and union. The acceptance and even cultivation of contradiction produces texts that defy definition and force the reader to suspend judgment and adopt an open and flexible position.
Attempts to define a clearly delineated ideological posture in Ganivet's essays fail in the face of a purposeful irrationalism and consistent shifts in position. For some readers, the repudiation of positivism, capitalism, and Kantian pure reason reflects the failure of the Enlightenment to take root in Spain and leads to an antirational stance bordering on fascism. However, Ganivet's redefinitions of history and his insistent rejection of a logic that justifies injustice and of a capitalism that promotes war can also be read as an answer to the crisis of modernity that continues to find voice in contemporary thought. Furthermore, his unrelenting attack on imperialism and respect for different cultures and values anticipate late 20th-century views. During the height of the Cuban struggle to win independence from Spain and during the years when European imperialist dominance over Africa and Asia were viewed as proof of Western superiority over the rest of the world, Ganivet's writings proposed new, nonimperialist forms of leadership. Idearium español argues that the greatness of a nation does not depend on territorial extension, and calls on Spain to initiate a new postcolonial order that is without precedent in world history. The text speaker makes use of nationalistic discourse in order to combat it, calling on national pride but toward a new end.
The essays of Angel Ganivet offer new modalities of thinking and writing. His texts evade clear categorization in keeping with his rejection of 19th-century rationalist and scientific discourse and thought. The organization of ideas follows a circular pattern, with the reintroduction of previously mentioned ideas, but with significant (albeit subtle) variations.
Through a complex interweaving of inherited discourse and modern variations, Ganivet's essays seek to rewrite the pas and create new forms of cultural coexistence.
by Mark P. Del Mastro The Citadel
"Es el caso que al hablar de Ganivet algunos le han llamado precursor,... lo digo redondamente y sin ambajes, que si entre Ganivet y yo hubo influencia mutua, fué mucho mayor la mía sobre él que la de él sobre mí [sic]."
(Unamuno, Obras completas 4: 955-56, from Salamanca, February 1912) The question of precursors of literary movements is complicated by the impossibility--and perhaps absurdity--of identifying a sole figure. Over the years, the "Generation of '98" has also suffered the same problems of definition. Of the possible precursors--generally designated by their ideological influence over the movement or "generation"--Angel Ganivet's name began to surface predominantly at the beginning of the 20th century as a result of two events: 1) the commemoration in the Ateneo de Madrid on 29 November 1903 of the 5th anniversary of Ganivet's death and 2) the publication of his Idearium español in August of 1897, which initiated critical interest in his works.1 Unamuno, however, protested this new focus on Ganivet, especially the position of Carlos Malagarriga who claimed that Ganivet was the true spiritual source of contemporary--early 20th century--Spanish intellects. Perhaps partially due to his own written protests, Unamuno's reputation as ideological "father" of the noventayochistas remained. But certainly reinforcing this distinction was En torno al casticismo (first published as separate essays in the journal La España Moderna in 1895, two years prior to the Idearium),2 one of the first recognized works of the Generation that systematically and philosophically proposed solutions for the social and ideological crises of "fin de siglo" Spain. Because the Idearium and ETC share similar '98 principles, the appearance of numerous comparative studies was logical.3 Unfortunately, few recognized the importance of Ganivet's doctoral dissertation, España filosófica contemporánea, a work that also presented '98 concepts but was written in 1889, six years prior to the circulation of ETC. The only study that approaches a comparison of EFC and ETC is Donald Shaw's book La Generación del 98, although Shaw seems to leave the door open intentionally for others to undertake the task. The following analysis will attempt to enter this open door and revindicate Ganivet as one of the important precursors of "La generación del 98." The primary reason for scant comparative studies is EFC was not published until 1930 in Ganivet's Obras completas; consequently, for critics it has been unjustified to consider EFC influential in contemporary Spanish thought, including Unamuno's. Then why and how can one claim the contrary? In Madrid in May and June of 1891, during the competitive examinations for the chairs of Greek at the Universities of Granada and Salamanca respectively, Ganivet and Unamuno were introduced and, as Unamuno himself explains, they met and conversed daily for about 6 weeks (Unamuno, Obras completas 4: 954). Although he observes that Ganivet was "silencioso de niño y de mozo" (Obras completas 10: 175) during these cordial meetings, Unamuno admits that his friend did make "observaciones de cuando en cuando" (175). Despite Unamuno's denial, mutual influence was certainly possible, and as will be demonstrated in this analysis, a strong argument exists for Ganivet's impact on Unamuno's thinking, thereby reinforcing the claim that Ganivet represents a precursor of both Unamuno's ideas and those of the Generation of 1898.4 As the title suggests, EFC addresses the philosophical problem of Spain with applications to the country's society of the period. According to Ganivet, Spain is in decay because a fragmented and inappropriate philosophical base has prevented the proliferation of beneficial ideas. This fragmentation is due to the Spanish adoption of multiple foreign ideologies--the "medios puramente externos" (EFC 591)--such as Krausism, positivism, materialism and social Darwinism of Haeckel, all of which fail to share a collective and uniquely Spanish mission. For Ganivet, the possibility of social reform is found in a collective ideological mission that begins with a system of philosophical education focused on the directive ideas (592), or mother ideas (598), and a combination of common philosophy, or "filosofía vulgar," and scientific philosophy, or "filosofía científica" (592). Common philosophy, Ganivet explains, is distinct from scientific philosophy--"los medios externos" or the "sistemas contradictorios" (EFC 609)--by forming part of the Spanish essence--the common cultural trait of Spain--that corresponds to all Spaniards. According to the author, it is:
...la que carece de un fondo sistemático u ordenado y una organización completa; …la que es patrimonio de todos los hombres, la que inspira la vida de la sociedad y forma lo que generalmente se denomina medio ambiente, es decir, la idea que flota en todos los espíritus e imprime cierto sello de unidad a cada época histórica." (593)
This is akin to the notion of tradition: customs and ideas that originate from the psychological union of people with the land that surrounds them; ideas and customs already founded and passed along to their predecessors.5 For Ganivet, it is critical to initiate educational reform with both special consideration to and the implementation of this collective ideology. Nevertheless, the author believes that people ignore this ideology when learning scientific philosophy, the contradictory systems. Isolated from common philosophy, the scientific is: contenida en explicaciones que no traspasan las paredes de las aulas universitarias, o en volúmenes que rara vez son sacados del estante de la biblioteca, no puede ser utilizada con otra representación que con la suya propia... como expresión de un núcleo más o menos numeroso de individuos. (EFC 593)
Ganivet claims that all philosophical frameworks not originating from Spanish society, or common philosophy, pertain exclusively to the scientific. Individuals that adopt the scientific ignore their common philosophy and consequently fail to achieve results that will benefit collective society; in this case, it is egotism that motivates them. Each social institution in Spain, as around the globe, is motivated by the group's special interests, which Ganivet labels as "las ideas particulares" (592) and the "interés particular" (612). However, the "ideas particulares" are not related to the "ideas madres" mentioned previously. While the mother ideas serve to benefit all Spaniards and represent the harmonic union of common and scientific philosophies, the "ideas particulares" benefit exclusively distinct groups and are the result of the "divorce" of these two philosophies. The complementing presence of selfishness naturally leads to the particular ideas and prevents the achievement of the mother ideas or the "grandes ideales" (608).6 Motivated solely by their individual interests, Spaniards are incapable of identifying their common philosophy, thereby missing the critically important mother ideas. Because of the false promise of utopia, Spanish society seeks purely external mechanisms or ideas. The resulting condition of this fruitless quest is "indeterminación" (EFC 611), "la apatía" (602) and "letargo mental" (608), and Spain is rendered an "enfermo... débil y postrado" (653). The author claims that the conflict among the numerous external ideas--ideologies originating outside of Spain--inevitably confuse the Spaniards, ultimately creating indifference, apathy and a mentally hampered state. Ganivet identifies this condition later as "la abulia" in a letter dated 18 February 1893 to his friend Francisco Navarro y Ledesma:
El temor de perder las ideas es un signo mortal; no es que las ideas se van a perder, es que se va a escapar de nuestro dominio la inteligencia, que no podremos tener ideas cuando queramos porque la inteligencia no quiera fijarse en los objetos. Esta aversión es muy frecuente en los tontos, porque en ellos la inteligencia no tiene posibilidad de apropiarse sinnúmero de cosas; es también síntoma de la abulia o debilitación de la voluntad, porque en este padecimiento la vida retrograda, no pudiendo vencer la pereza, que le impide continuar asimilándose elementos nuevos para renovar la vida al compás del tiempo. …La causa de la enfermedad es la falta de atención (sic). (Epistolario 26-27)
The origin of this clinical metaphor is the reference adopted by the French psychologist Théodule Armand Ribot in the late 19th century. Nevertheless, Ganivet's use of "la abulia" to diagnose metaphorically the condition of his country echoes within the works of several Generation of '98 writers and contemporaries such as Azorín, Baroja, Maeztu, Cajal and Machado.7 As previously noted, Ganivet's envisioned remedy for the "abulia" is achieved by the reconciliation of the common and scientific philosophies. When the scientific establishes roots in Spanish tradition and its "realidad," or common philosophy, this union will reflect the "ideas directivas," the only solution for successful social reform in Spain. To initiate this process, however, a Ganivetian "maestro" (EFC 668) must determine the appropriate combination of common and scientific philosophies for each individual of society. The "maestro" is responsible for presenting the mother ideas to each person or student and, at the same time, the student must trust in the good will of the "maestro" in order to adopt without reservations these new ideals. Also, the "maestro" must act with a pure love--free of self interest--and be indifferent with the pupil. This indifference, however, is not of the abulic sense. Ganivet refers to an indifference that connotes unselfishness: one's de-emphasis of the material, the rejection of surpassing fellow man, and not taking advantage of him. Ganivetian indifference and love are the qualities of assuring that the "maestro" does not intervene with selfish and negative motives. The process of obtaining new directive ideas should be realized individually and not collectively because the inappropriate acquisition of generic ideas by all members of society will again lead to the period's problem with scientific philosophy. All citizens are unique and, consequently, their intellectual needs--the individual aptitudes of EFC (673)--vary. These distinct aptitudes should be recognized and cultivated by the "maestro" in harmony and conjunction with Spanish history, tradition and reality; in other words, with common philosophy. In this manner, the "maestro" will not commit the same egotistical error reflected in special interests because the mother ideas --although containing some unique characteristics-- will be founded upon Spain's history, tradition and contemporary reality. Parallel to EFC is Unamuno's ETC. Of the concepts most widely recognized from this work, perhaps the most notable is "la intrahistoria" (56).8 Within this notion, which Unamuno also terms "eterna esencia" and "la tradición eterna," is the remedy for Spain's abulic condition. Unamuno writes: "Esa vida intrahistórica, silenciosa y continua como el fondo mismo del mar, es la sustancia del progreso, la verdadera tradición, la tradición eterna, no la tradición mentira que se suele ir a buscar al pasado enterrado en libros y papeles, y monumentos, y piedras" (28). Further ahead in the same series of articles, Unamuno elaborates his definition: "La tradición eterna es lo que deben buscar los videntes de todo pueblo para elevarse a la luz, haciendo conciente en ellos lo que en el pueblo es inconciente, para guiarle así mejor [sic]" (29). Here are clear echoes of Ganivet's common philosophy in the "vida intrahistórica" and the "tradición eterna," concepts that for both authors are essential for society's guidance by the directive ideas explained by Ganivet. Without these guides, society is misdirected and without possibilities for progress. According to Unamuno, "La tradición eterna es el fondo del ser del hombre mismo. El hombre, esto es lo que hemos de buscar en nuestra alma (ETC 30)… Hay que ir a la tradición eterna, madre del ideal, que no es otra cosa que ella misma reflejada en el futuro" (34). Like Ganivet, Unamuno emphasizes the need to discover the "madre del ideal" or "idea directiva" to progress, and he explains this with the complicated notion he labels "el nimbo," "un fondo de continuidad... que envuelve a lo precedente con lo subsiguiente" (ETC 60), like an eternal sea of knowledge that unites past, present and future of society's ideas. With this concept, Unamuno alludes to the Spaniards' individual efforts of turning inward to discover the "la tradición eterna"/"la intrahistoria" to unite this with surrounding/contemporary reality. In the author's time, people do not achieve the "nimbo" or directive idea because their lives are isolated in a "presente momento histórico" (ETC 27)--or Ganivet's scientific philosophy--which is not associated or linked to the eternal tradition--Ganivet's common philosophy--in a continuum. This "presente momento histórico" is "la superficie del mar, una superficie que se hiela y cristaliza en los libros y registros... " (27); like Ganivet's scientific philosophy it is found separated on library shelves (EFC 593). Similar to Ganivet, Unamuno describes the treatment of this history, of "los libros y registros," as disassociated from man's eternal tradition, or common philosophy; in other words, that which forms part of the Spaniard's essence. Explaining this problem in Spain, Ganivet refers to scientific philosophy, which is parallel to Unamuno's "tradición mentira," the symbolic sea's surface. As noted previously, Ganivet states that the divorce or separation of scientific and common philosophies is the main cause of Spain's demise. This common philosophy, or Unamuno's "tradición eterna," is distinct from scientific philosophy. When both ideologies are linked is when the mother idea or Unamunian "nimbo" will come forth. The "intrahistoria" is progressive, like the directive idea, when it is associated with present reality. For Unamuno, a sound example of disassociation is that which exists between literature (corresponding to "intrahistoria") and science (corresponding to reality or the "presente momento histórico"). Both Unamuno and Ganivet recognize the same result of this ideological separation: egotism and the subsequent "abulia." The Unamunian ideas of egotism and love also align with Ganivet's.
For both authors, selfishness completely inhibits personal and social reforms by preventing the indispensable component of love. In the views of Ganivet and Unamuno, love is a pure and noble sentiment manifested in the help of others and the control of egotistical tendencies. The person who adopts this ideal love will prove a formidable collaborator in the utopian missions postulated by the two authors. For Unamuno, "El fuerte, el radicalmente fuerte, no puede ser egoísta: el que tiene fuerza de sobra, la saca para darla" (ETC 46). The ideas of force and power go hand-in-hand with love, and not egoism. By exhibiting this same quality, the Ganivetian "maestro" is essentially the same "radicalmente fuerte" of Unamuno: a selfless individual whose pure love results in his/her pupils' attainment of the mother ideas, as explained previously in terms of Ganivetian indifference. In Unamuno's eyes, love itself makes possible the true success of ideal reform and the collective, individual benefits of the Spanish people: "A través del amor llegamos a las cosas con nuestro ser propio" (24). These "cosas" are the ideas or the superficial history found in the "libros y registros" but that are achieved and understood appropriately by means of "nuestro ser propio," in other words, by means of the "intrahistoria" and the eternal tradition of the people. Unamuno believes love establishes the union …show more content…
between "intrahistoria" and science, while Ganivet sees love as the first step to reconciling common and scientific philosophies. Nevertheless, the actual separation of these two ideologies results in the Spanish condition that Ganivet labels as "letargo mental" (EFC 608) and "abulia" (Epistolario 26), and that Unamuno calls "el marasmo" (ETC 125) and "la abulia" (138). With these akin clinical metaphors, both authors view Spain as ill. In the case of the "abulia," Ganivet selects a medical term from a French psychologist--as previously noted--to describe the hampered mental state of the afflicted Spaniards. With marasmus, Unamuno refers to a physical condition: the chronic illness of semi-starvation typical in children suffering reduced growth. In advanced stages, marasmus is exhibited as muscle deterioration and the absence of subcutaneous fat. For Unamuno, it is a problem of a Spain malnourished by scarce new ideas: "No hay corrientes vivas internas en nuestra vida intelectual y moral; esto es un pantano de agua estancada, no corriente de manantial" (ETC 132). In Ganivet's view, Spain's condition is perpetuated by the overabundance of inappropriate, non-Spanish ideals. Contemporary ideology, for both authors, is insufficient to rehabilitate the country. Both Unamuno and Ganivet believe that ideological rehabilitation has its key step in the association between reality, the "presente momento histórico"/"la filosofía científica" and "la intrahistoria"/"la filosofía vulgar." However, in contrast to Ganivet, Unamuno does not propose that this reform be achieved through a "maestro," but rather by the Spaniards themselves.
For Unamuno, the "europeización" of Spain is critical for initiating this social and intellectual process since Spanish ideas are stagnated. Together with the attempt of each citizen to discover their "tradiciones eternas," Spaniards should Europeanize themselves. They must join the process of internal discovery with contemporary European ideas in order to stimulate and enhance the immobile intellectual current of the present: "Con el aire de fuera regenero mi sangre, no respirando el que exhalo" (ETC 145). Ganivet views Spain's crisis as caused precisely by the invasion of foreign ideologies. What must be done, therefore, is reduce external influences in favor of the dominance of Spanish ideals. Foreign philosophies can only be implanted in Spain if they conform to the country's contemporary common philosophy. Of all the similarities noted in this study, it is this point that most distinguishes the proposed reforms of the
authors. Typical of Unamuno's proud demeanor is his insistence that his ideological influence on Ganivet was greater than Ganivet's on him during their "tertulias" in Madrid in 1891. However, Unamuno's assertion is challenged by the fact that two years earlier--in 1889--Ganivet had already outlined ideas in his doctoral thesis that Unamuno later presents in ETC (1895). Ganivet, and not Unamuno, first explained ideas that appear, although with different terminologies, in numerous works that follow by Unamuno, Azorín, Baroja and Maeztu, among others. The literary impact of Unamuno on his contemporaries should not be de-emphasized, but it is certainly possible that Ganivet discussed the regenerationist ideas of EFC with Unamuno during their encounters in Madrid in 1891 and, consequently, Unamuno expounded some of those concepts in ETC. Despite opposing views such as José Luis Abellán's, and in light of the ideological comparisons realized in this study, Ganivet should be revindicated as one of the important predecessors of Unamuno and the Generation of 1898.