Teresa Herzgsell: Data Driven Perspectives on Cultural Heritage
This article approaches questions of intellectual heritage from a data-driven standpoint, and uses specific indicators to delineate the issue using the collection of metadata gathered by the project. In the datasheets the project has created, there are markers that can function as starting points for such an approach. This article will use two quantitative markers for inquiries on intellectual and cultural heritage: the entries in the dedication column and the year of death, deducing from the latter, contributors who appeared post mortem in the magazines. (1) The outcomes of the search for deceased contributors will be combined with an analysis of crossovers between historical figures that stand out numerically in this way, and the titles of the contributions, in order to find more clues on the inclusion and significance of possible intellectual predecessors in the magazines.
1. The dedication as a marker for intellectual heritage
‘Neither historians nor theoreticians of literature have shown much interest in dedications, although dedications raise important issues in poetics and display an evolution in which a whole history of social insertion of texts can be read’, remarked Ross Chambers in 1988 (Chambers: 5). Since, only little progress has been made in this regard. Gerard Genette featured the dedication as a paratext in his book one year later. His central point was a differentiation between a public dedication in printed form and a personal handwritten dedication in a single specimen (Genette: 141). He stressed that a printed dedication could be revoked with new volumes, while the dedication as a personal note keeps its status forever (Genette: 135). In 2019, Dieter Burdorf recalled Genette’s ideas on differentiation, and referred to them as ‘gedruckten’ (printed) and ‘handschriftlichen’ (handwritten) dedications in the course of his article ‘Die Strahlkraft der Namen’ (Burdorf: 167). He productively worked with the interplay of the lyrical text and the internal and paratextual inclusion of names/dedications as a means of textual interpretation. His article shows how dedications can act as clues for the construction of (lyrical) texts. Genette alluded to that phenomenon, only indirectly when he attributed to the dedication similar functions as to the preface and noted the intentionality of dedications. Other than that Genette reduced its functions to the ‘(honest or dishonest) display of a relationship (of any kind) between the author and some person, group or entity’ (2) (Genette: 132), leaving any possible link between dedication and textual construction to be found by the percipients themselves reading between the lines. (3)
When seeing the dedication as a marker of intellectual heritage both aspects come together. That is, the dedication as a public performance of an intellectual, private, real, or symbolic relationship (Genette: 132), and the significance for the production of the text. They do not necessarily always occur together, but can both be conceptually connected to intellectual heritage. As a pure performance of a relationship, the dedication can completely stay outside of the text, and signify to the reader nothing more than a devotion to the addressee. As a clue to the understanding of a text, though, it can work as a key to or source for decoding the text. Seen as a paratext the dedication connects the world of the text with its contextual surroundings (e.g. the ‘real’ world, the literary field, other literary products,…), and seen as part of the text it becomes crucial for the text-immanent signification, resulting in an inability to grasp the literary product without taking the dedication into account.
In the magazines of the avant-garde, typically there is no coherent system to the dedicatory practice across the corpus, and rarely is there one in a single title. Most dedications are singular. Concretely there are 273 different addressees of dedications (human and institutional) of which 222 are dedicated to only once, 26 twice (4), and 16 three (5) times. This leaves nine addressees with four or more dedications. (6) The only significant dedicatory pattern that can be deduced from the numbers alone within this last group of nine refers to the magazine publications themselves. Claridad is the most obvious example for this. Of the 101 dedicatory notes that can be found in the magazine, 68 are directed to Claridad itself, and indicate that the contribution had been produced specifically for the magazine. A cynical perspective on this practice, would be to read it as a tributary practice implemented to make provision for future contributions. Looking at the number of magazines that were published simultaneously, however, the many possibilities for successfully placing a contribution makes this seem an unlikely reason. A more positive and realistic interpretation, that relates back to Genette, would be rather to see this as a public performance of intellectual kinship. In this view, the dedication can be read as an explicit signal of the contributors’ conformity with the content and aim of the magazine, indicating that the magazine in question is valuable enough for them to specifically compose texts for it, and demonstrating to the greater public a symbolic cooperation and partnership. The same pattern can be found in Amauta. (7) Other magazines like Revista de Avance and Ultra show a slightly different yet similar pattern, as some of their editors receive relatively large numbers of dedications. In Revista de Avance, two of the editors of the magazine receive more of the 56 dedications than any other individual, with Jorge Mañach receiving eight dedications and Juan Marinello receiving six. In Ultra, Humberto Rivas Panedas, one of the founders of the magazine, is the dedicatee of at least six contributions, (8) out of a total of 50 dedications.
What is particularly interesting is that political affiliation is in numbers marked more strongly than the desire to disclose artistic affinity, as both Claridad and Amauta are not just literary and cultural magazines, but have a clear political outlook, and the editors of Avance that received the most dedications were politically very engaged. Mañach was a strong supporter of José Martí and later exiled due to his political views, while Marinello even became a politician. The dedicatory practice in these magazines, therefore, demonstrates a political positioning, with the publications forming an outlet for like-minded thinkers. In these avant-garde magazines it shows, that, despite all the forced individuality in the vanguard movements, there still was an effort to demonstrate publicly an affiliation between the contributors and the publications in the political field. This points to a consciousness regarding the placement of the contributions not just on the part of the magazine editors, who decided on the content of each issue, but also on the part of the contributors, whom it is strongly suggested created each contribution with a specific place of publication in mind, possibly even tailoring the contents to match the magazine’s programmatic direction.
Ultra and the dedications made to Humberto Rivas Panedas tell a second story based on other observations that can be made from the results of the data-processing. Next to him there are Rafael Alberti, Germaine Erato (9) , Guillermo de Torre, and Jorge Luís Borges in the group of nine who receive four or more dedications and therefore stand out quantitatively. While the dedications to Rivas Panedas made by Jaime Ibarra, Wladyslaw Jahl, Jorge Luís Borges, etc. all happen in Ultra itself, they show an interesting aspect that can be extended to most of the other addresses in this group. This aspect is the in-group character of the dedications, as the dedicatees as well as the dedicators were active in the vanguard movements. They were well-connected in the intellectual circles responsible for artistic and literary developments as well as the creation of these magazines. Guillermo de Torre, for example, was an editor at La Gaceta Literaria and 4 of the 6 dedications he received can be found in this periodical. Jorge Luis Borges was one of the founders of Proa, and 1 of his 7 dedications is a contribution to this magazine by Fernán Silva Valdés. In turn Borges dedicated a contribution to him. Other dedicators to him can also be found in this group of nine, such as Guillermo de Torre and Humberto Rivas Panedas. Rafael Alberti, though not the founder of a magazine, was still an integral part of the poetic circles of the time. He received dedications from Emilio Prados, another poet ascribed to the Generacion del 27, Raffael Laffón, a Sevillian poet close to the vanguard movements, Elena Crúz López, madrileña, vanguardista and daughter of one of the founders of the newspaper El Sol, and last but not least Ernesto Gímenez Caballero, founder of La Gaceta Literaria, in which all of his dedications to Alberti can be found. The principle should have become clear through these examples; the level of a writer’s dedicatory attention is directly related to his/her position within the field. The network-visualisations below provides more details on this phenomenon.
The first visualisation (fig. 1) shows only the protagonists who received dedications while at the same time dedicating their own work to others. The size of the nodes depends on the incoming degree of received dedications, while the colours of the nodes refer to the outgoing degree of given dedications (yellow=low; red=medium; blue=high). The direction of the arrows indicates who dedicates to whom, and the mixed colours of the edges are a result of the nodes being different colours, as the edge colours are generated based on the colours of the parent nodes.
Figure 1: Dedication network
Most of the names are well-known protagonists of the Spanish-language avant-garde movements. Except for Elena Crúz López, all of the protagonists that previously stood out in numerical terms are central figures in this network of mutual dedicatory practice. The informational holes that are left can be closed by extending the network another layer, to include one more degree of separation. Just such an extended version of the visualisation can be seen below (fig. 2), with the remarks on colouring and node-size being equally valid for this extended version.
Figure 2: Extended dedication network
This second network brings more in-depth information to the first visualisation. Not only does it show connector figures that dedicate to several of the most prolific receivers of dedications, it also makes explicit the level of connectedness between protagonists of one cultural and aesthetic group, and shows how little these are in turn connected to the other better-connected part that is the aforementioned Latin American political group involving Marinello, Mañach, and Claridad. Definitely striking is the literary connection in the middle of the image, with Jorge Luis Borges, Guillermo de Torre, and Humberto Rivas Panedas bringing to mind the nucleus of Ultraism as the central Spanish-language vanguard movement. In the network Ernesto Gimenez Caballero, founder and editor-in-chief of the literary periodical La Gaceta Literaria, interestingly becomes visible in his supporting role for literature and the arts, as he is the figure in this network that dedicates most to others. (10)
As a conclusion that can be drawn from this discussion, there are two important patterns that can be found in the dedications. Firstly, there is the dedicatory practice towards the publications, to indicate an intellectual (and political) proximity, and secondly, there is the dedicatory practice as in-group phenomenon. Reading both together, it can be deduced that dedications in the Spanish-language avant-garde magazines function less as a marker for heritage and literary tradition, but rather more as a public performance of intellectual, artistic and/or political kinship, as well as an effort to ascribe more value to certain central actors and institutions. While the dedication as a data-deduced marker unfortunately does not determine an inscription into any kind of intellectual or cultural lineage, it does show the will to create intellectual networks and reference points in and of itself.
2. Post mortem publications and Intellectual heritage
Publications of texts by deceased historical figures on the other hand are a more productive marker for intellectual lineage building and tradition. They are a clue to the value the magazines ascribed to their authors in terms of cultural and intellectual heritage. (Re-)publishing texts indicates that they hold a value and are worth (re-)reading as they still inform the present and have an impact on the prevailing discourse. What is interesting in the avant-garde corpus is the differentiation between the treatment of the political and the artistic heritage that becomes visible when focusing on the inclusion of content by already deceased contributors. (11)
The data, when looking only at the deceased contributors, reveals a similar structure as the dedication data. There are 177 deceased contributors of which a vast majority – 116 – appears only once. Of the remaining 61 contributors, 19 appear twice, 20 three times, and the remaining 22 are (re-)printed on four or more occasions. When looking at these last 22 contributors more closely it becomes apparent that only a few of them could function as examples of intellectual and cultural lineage building. Eight of them are featured only in one magazine. Which leaves 14 contributors with the potential to have had an influence on the vanguard magazines that that goes beyond a single publication: Rafael Barrett (14/3 sum contributions/sum magazine titles), José Ingenieros (11/3), Leo Tolstoy (10/3), Luis de Góngora y Argote (8/2), Percy Bysshe Shelley (8/2), Guillaume Apollinaire (5/3), Arthur Rimbaud (5/2), Joan Salvat-Papasseit (5/3), Abraham Ángel (4/2), William Blake (4/2), Ramón López Velarde (4/2), Pierre Louÿs (4/3), Roberto Jorge Payró (4/2), and Albert Samain (4/2). Since this group is too large to focus on every figure in more detail it has been narrowed down to the first four names in this list. There are several reasons for this. First, there can be two pairs of similar figures detected in this shortlist that are interesting to be compared, as they refer back to the partitioning in the dedicatory practice: the political thinkers Ingenieros and Barrett, and the poetic writers Tolstoy and Góngora. This leaves the obvious question of why Percy Bysshe Shelley, despite having the same number of reprints and being spread out across as many magazine titles as Góngora, will not be considered in this article. When looking a little further into the data, into the reception and discussion of the three authors, it becomes apparent that Tolstoy and Góngora are mentioned in a lot of other contribution titles while Shelley receives scant attention. (12) Apart from his own texts, there are only two more mentions in the titles, one referring to an image of him, the other a note on an anniversary of his (both in Prisma 8). Góngora, on the other hand, is mentioned in 50 titles, Tolstoy in 32. A stark difference can be seen between the political thinkers in the numbers as well: Barrett, while republished the most often, is only mentioned twice in the titles. Ingenieros, by contrast, is mentioned in 34 titles.
Both political thinkers were mostly republished in the Argentinian left-wing magazine Claridad, but also with one contribution in each in the Peruvian Amauta and the Mexican Horizonte (Jalapa). This alone points to a political motivation behind the reprints, as all three magazines had strong affiliations with the socialist movements of the time. Conversely, the literary writers were not published as often, but on both continents in turn and they were discussed much more as was seen. Tolstoy was reprinted in Claridad eight times and only once in La Gaceta Literaria and Horizonte (Jalapa). The motivation behind those actions, as the following discussion will show, was more political than artistic, and the commentary on him is there to support this claim. Góngora is the one least often published on this list, with five consecutive sonnets of his published in Martín Fierro, and one in La Gaceta Literaria and Litoral. The commentary on his life and work, however, is profound and more widespread, and shows a tension between the vanguard poets that ranges from an emphatic acceptance of Góngora as a literary predecessor to a resolute negation of his literary value.
2.1 The ‘Centenario’: a collective commemoration
The following paragraphs illustrate that the commemoration of Tolstoy and Góngora in the Spanish-speaking world was a societal phenomenon that was reflected, reported on, and driven further by the magazines. Celebrations and jubilees like these anniversaries, were not necessarily initiated by the magazines, but rather organized by public actors and institutions. They are therefore linked back to other societal forms of inscription into processes of cultural lineage (building). The magazines, however, participated consciously in selected instances of this collective practice. They did so in two ways, of which one was the reprint of the work of the deceased authors, and the other the production of an accompanying discourse concerning the celebrated writers and festivities. The centennials of Góngora’s death and Tolstoy’s birth are quantitatively the most visible of those regarding literary authors, and provoked the most wide-ranging reactions in the magazines of the project corpus. The starting point in empirical hindsight was the re-publication of their works. When looking at the times of the re-publications it is noticeable that most of them are temporally linked back to the jubilees regarding them as historical figures. For this reason, the explanations are embedded more strongly in a historical contextualization, in the light of the theoretical backdrop of the jubilee as a commemorative practice and the commentary surrounding the occasion of the Góngora and Tolstoy anniversaries, rather than in the texts themselves that were republished.
As Marko Demantowsky points out regarding anniversaries, ‘this garland of ritualised commemoration apparently also makes use of human perception and older needs of biographical alignment. Anniversaries do not appear to us, for instance, as being made by humans, but rather as natural events. The concreteness of the calendar strengthens this illusion.’ (Demantowsky: De Gruyter / Public History Weekly). It is symptomatic for anniversaries to appear in this naturalised way as Catrin B. Kollmann argues, while at the same time being anything but that. The processes and decisions made regarding these jubilees are often kept untransparent, disguising the cultural and political purposes they serve (Kollmann: 13). Historically, the celebration of jubilees can be traced back to the early beginnings of Christianity, the Old Testament, and the Hebrew language that the word stems from. The Christian religion, from these beginnings onwards, implemented such memorial celebration as a part of the religious practice. In the 16th century Protestant universities took over this practice of memorialisation, which in turn began a growing secularization of the phenomenon (Kollmann: 21 ff.). When societies at the beginning of the 20th century thus celebrated centennials, these were already well-established forms of memory-building. Being a public act (13) they do not exist as an end in themselves, but are always linked to a function that is informed by present needs in a specific group. As Kollmann writes: ‘Historical jubilees build identity, continuity, and tradition for the celebrating collective. In historical and social perspective, historical jubilees can support a collective self-assurance, or in other words support the formation of the identity of a group. They construct the specific history of a group and create possible reference points and common links. Last but not least, jubilees link the past, present, and future of a community and this way create continuity’ (14) (Kollmann: 30). These kinds of festivities, therefore, need to be read and interpreted in light of the community that celebrates them (Kollmann: 27).
It can be tempting to see the reporting on a jubilee as superimposed - by the circumstance of it happening - on the literary and cultural magazines of the avant-garde. This would leave them in the position of onlookers and merely the medium of public practice. The decision to report on an anniversary, to offer special issues, and to print a series of articles on it is, however, just as much of a conscious act as the decision to organize a jubilee. It was obviously one of the functions of the magazines to inform their readers on events in the cultural field, but they were not forced to do so in an extensive way. Looking at how differently the publications handled such calendrical and societal occurrences underlines this. Not all anniversaries automatically led to larger commentary and reporting. When searching thought the titles of the contributions, it becomes apparent that there are several jubilees mentioned, but while some of them were only announced as news snippets, others got a lot of attention. Examples for such short, singular notes on their ‘Centenario’ are Casimiro Ulloa and José Antonio Barrenechea in Amauta (22), Eliseo Reclus in Claridad (155), and Carlos de Coster and Leandro Fernandez de Moratín in La Gaceta Literaria (30 and 37 respectively). Others like Shelley, Ibsen and Beethoven were called upon only a bit more often, and some of Shelley’s texts, for example, were even reprinted. This, however, is marginal compared to the attention Góngora and Tolstoy received. They were treated much more systematically and their jubilees were reported on in several, not just single, magazines. It is safe to say that this is no mere coincidence, but rather that they were carefully chosen, and it showed a forced and publicly exhibited link between developments in the avant-garde movements and these writers as historical figures. The following paragraphs will focus on Góngora and Tolstoy, as two different logics apply to their commemoration in the magazines. While Luis de Góngora functioned as an aesthetic predecessor to certain protagonists of the avant-garde movements, Tolstoy’s appearance in the publications was more connected to a political interest to inspire a political and sociological debate around the workers’ movement and Russian socialist developments of the time.
2.1.1 Luis de Góngora
In 1927 the anniversary of Góngora was celebrated in Córdoba 300 years after his demise. (15) The Gaceta Literaria acknowledged the poet with an issue dedicated to him especially. On the first of June, 1927, issue number 11 came out with the heading ‘1627 – Mayo – 1927. Centenario de Góngora’. The objective of the magazine was to first ‘reflejar (deber informativo) un acontecimiento poético que conmueve en estos momentos las lindes literarias del orbe hispánico’ and second, ‘intervenir decididamente en el caso gongorino para sotolinear (16) la connivencia que el espíritu de Góngora pueda tener con el de LA GACETA LITERARIA’ (LGL 11: 1). And this spiritual kinship was shared not only between the magazine and the baroque poet but also with the literary scene at the time. Three of the six pages of the Gaceta in this issue flow over with texts in honour of Luis de Góngora. From Pedro Salinas to Alfonso Reyes to José Ortega y Gasset; virtually everyone who was of importance in the literary field in Spain honoured him. From other countries writers such as Carlos Boselli and Albert Thibaudet were featured and the international impact that was ascribed to Góngora was exhibited through contributions such as ‘Góngora en Alemania’ and ‘Góngora en Francia’. Along with this, one of his poems was published on the first page with the commentary that ‘el mejor retrueque agradecido que Góngora puede prestar es el de ofrecernos su famoso soneto cuatrilingüe’ (La Gaceta Literaria 11: 1). This speaks not only to the widespread fame of Góngora but also of the importance his work gained at the time for the avant-garde. This centennial is considered ‘El nacimiento de la Generación de 27’ by Manuel Bernal Romero. The same year also saw a gathering of young poets from the Residencia de Estudiantes in Madrid honouring Góngora in Sevilla in December, which, in turn, has been considered the founding hour of the group (Arias), possibly because this was more of an in-group phenomenon that solidified the poetic developments arising from the time. Many of the protagonists there had, however, been active in the previous centennial celebration of Góngora in Córdoba, and had attended and spoken at the event. The activities can even be traced back to the year before – 1926 – when, according to Gerardo Diego, ideas to honour Góngora the following year began to form (De Lama: 25 ff.). Thanks to the realisation of the events in 1927, the poets of these literary circles became known as the Generación del 27. It is obvious how fundamentally linked the memorial for the baroque poet is to the poetic developments of subsequent years, some of the most remarkable poetry that Spanish literature has produced.
It is not surprising that Litoral, the most important magazine publication of the Generación del 27, also seized upon the occasion and published a triple issue (No. 5,6,7) in homage to Góngora in October 1927. Litoral as a magazine was dedicated to publishing mostly poetry together with drawings and reproductions of artistic production. The special issue was no exception to this. It opened with an illustration by Juan Gris from 1926, dedicated visibly to Góngora.
Figure 3: Juan Gris Litoral No. 5,6,7
It featured poems from the ‘generation’s’ most prolific poets, such as Rafael Alberti, Gerardo Diego and Pedro Garfias, as the table of contents (fig. 4) demonstrates.
Figure 4: Table of contents Litoral No. 5,6,7
Despite the fact that the directives of the magazine did not allow for journalistic forms of reporting, there are some contributions which include markers that point to the honoured poet. The untitled poem from Jorge Guillen on page 35 for example was written ‘En honor de Don Luis de Góngora’ (Guillen: 35), and Juan Larrea contributed the poem ‘centenario’, with the title being the clearest marker of the fact that it had been specifically written for this issue by invitation of Gerardo Diego (De Lama: 502). Other than these two poems and the painting by Juan Gris, the most obvious link to the baroque poet is drawn through a musical score for the sonnet ‘A Córdoba (Soneto de Góngora)’ composed by Manuel de Falla on pages 46 and 47.
Bringing all those instances together, the issues of the Gaceta Literaria and Litoral with the celebration of the anniversary in Córdoba in May and the gathering in Sevilla in December, the year 1927 proves to be the starting point for a new poetic epoch, with the Generación del 27 being its epicentre in Spain. That beginning emerged out of a deep worship of Góngora as a poetic predecessor.
The centennial was also noted across the ocean in Latin America, with Horizonte (Jalapa), Martín Fierro, and the Revista de Avance choosing to report on it. Martín Fierro in Argentina for example dedicated the first two and a half pages of its issue 41 (May) to it. On the first page Jorge Luis Borges made fun of festivities like the ones in Córdoba. ‘Noventa y nueve años olvidadizos y uno de liviana tención e lo que por centenario se entiende: buen porcentaje del recuerdo que apetecemos y del mucho olvido que nuestra flaqueza precisa’, he wrote, before questioning the poetic value of Góngora’s legacy by pointing out the mathematical style of his writings, claiming that he ‘es símbolo de la cuidadosa tecniquería, de la simulación del misterio, de las meras aventuras de la síntaxis’ (Borges: 1). This verdict was not universally shared within the pages of the same issue. Pedro Henriquez Ureña, for example, described Góngora as the predecessor of French- and Spanish-language modernism, and Arturo Marasso wrote contrary to Borges of the qualities of Góngora’s poetic creation: ‘La espiritualidad y la elegancia, el capricho y la travesura, la cáustica socarronería y el sentimiento delicado y lírico del paisaje están en el fondo originalísimo de la poesía ligera de Góngora [...]’ (Marasso: 2). There were also two poems written in homage to Góngora and an assortment of five of his own sonnets stretching over half of page three. Other than in that issue, there was only one more mention of Góngora in Martín Fierro: Ricardo E. Molinari had announced the imminent jubilee two issues before, and in this announcement had already let slip that Borges was sceptic of the poet and that up until that point, only a few Argentinians, such as Marasso, had shown a deeper interest in him. Molinari himself regarded Góngora highly, and wrote that ‘don Luis ha sido y será siempre el mayor poeta de la lengua español’ (Molinari 39: 4). This admiration went so far as to him even using some of the baroque poet’s sayings for his own poetic production (Diego: 218). In the May issue he then contributed a fictional conversation between Góngora and other historical figures titled ‘A las 3 y 15 del día 24 en un pasillo de la Catedral de Córdoba’.
The Revista de Avance also announced the approach of the centennial in its April issue (no. 4), noting the importance of its patron for the current poetic developments in Spain. ‘Tal vez no se ha visto nunca en la historia de la evolución literaria de un pueblo caso tan patente de filiación como el de las actuales letras hispánicas respecto del “gongorismo”’ (Avance 4: 1). While not yet having a concrete program in mind, the magazine corroborated its plan to honour the poet in some form, in a different and more profound way than just reporting on the anniversary (Avance 4: 1). In the next issue, the magazine announced that a lecture series on occasion of the opening of the Salón de Arte de Nuevo to the public would include a lecture on Góngora’s ‘Soledades’ held by Francisco Ichaso. Avance went on to publish in issue 6 (30 May 1927) fragments of this lecture called ‘Góngora y la nueva poesía’. This was not the last that would be heard of Ichaso’s talk, as in issue 22 Avance published a small but highly favourable review of it by Raúl Roa García (appearing in the magazine under the initials R.R.G.), who also drew a connection to Spain when he said that the reviving capacities of the talk would benefit even a publication like the Gaceta Literaria (R.R.G.: 131).
Last but not least German List Azurbide, one of Mexico’s most important Stridentists, used the centennial as an opportunity to muse on the tragic misreading of Góngora throughout history in the tenth and last issue of Horizonte (Jalapa) of April/May 27. According to List Azurbide, during his lifetime the poet was chronically mistrusted and disfavourably looked upon. And after his death ‘han pretendido explicarlo, como si el genio, aun cuando quiera en venganza complicarse, fuera algo más claro y más al alcance de todos’ (List Azurbide: 52). The latest misunderstanding was the attempt to create a line of descent from him to the vanguard movements, as if ‘el arte no fuera un descubrimiento del día cada día’ (List Azurbide: 52).
Luis de Góngora inspired a rather disparate range of attitudes towards him, not just in life but again centuries later, in the avant-garde movements. While the Generación del 27 readily adopted him as a predecessor, others like List Azurbide did not agree with this stance, and some, like Borges, downright refused to see any value in the baroque poet or his poetry. These conflicting attitudes are reflected within the magazines, where they are brought together. And while Góngora’s own poetic production is reprinted in the publications more often than the works of other deceased poets, this is brought about only by the occasion of the 300th anniversary of his death. These conflicts within the avant-garde, however, point to the necessity of a more nuanced reading of its protagonists, as they are similar in some aspects, such as in the strive for innovation and poetic excellence, yet very different in others, such as their aesthetic self-positioning and historical reference points. For the late Spanish vanguards at least, as well as writers such as Ricardo E. Molinari, Góngora was just such a reference point, and an important part of their cultural heritage and aesthetic formation.
2.1.2 Leo Tolstoy
The year afterwards, 1928, saw the 100th anniversary of the birth of Leo Tolstoy, only 18 years after his death. In the magazines of the avant-garde in the Spanish-speaking world, the Gaceta Literaria stood out in its reporting of this occasion by dedicating a whole issue to the Russian author. This has not gone unnoticed in the research community. As Jessica Cáliz Montes points out in response to Begoña Ripoll, the issue was ‘un compendio del interés de los lectores por la situación surgida de la revolución soviética y de la vida y obra de Tolstoi que servía de puente entre Oriente y Occidente’ (Cáliz Montes: 132). This interest of the Spanish reading public in Russian developments is corroborated by Manuel Aznar Soler. One example he gives of it is the fact that the first edition of Rusia a los doce años was sold out within 40 days (Aznar Soler: 133 ff.). Both Aznar Soler and Cáliz Montes base their judgement of the Gaceta Literaria’s intent with this special issue on a remark made in Ernesto Giménez Caballero’s editorial of this same issue. The idea of the publication, accordingly, was to ‘establecer un nexo más en la serie de investigaciones literarias de que es órgano nuestro periódico: la relación que pueda existir entre los obreros y la literatura’ (Giménez Caballero, 1928: I). (17) For several Spaniards the anniversary came with the opportunity to travel to Russia by invitation. Amongst them were Julio Álvarez del Vayo, José Bergamín and José María Hinojosa Lasarte. The Gaceta Literaria reported on this and functioned as a platform for José Bergamín to publish an article about their impressions of the journey (cp. Aznar Soler: 133/ La Gaceta Literaria No 42: 3).
Despite the fact that the issue begins under the umbrella of the topline ‘El Centenario de Tolstoi’, demonstrating a link between ‘Los Obreros y la Literatura’ seems to be of higher importance as most contributions are dedicated to this second topic, which also functions as the central heading. Tolstoy’s presence was most dominantly marked on the first page, which includes two texts on him. Antonio Zozaya warmly extolled him with an ‘Antífona a Tolstoi’ while Spengler more coolly claimed that ‘Tolstoi es la Rusia del pasado. Dostoyevski es la Rusia del porvenir’ (Spengler 1928: 1). For Spengler, Tolstoy belongs in the past because he could not shake his Occidental roots. His thinking and his ideas were not new but a Christianity turned Marxism. Dostoyevsky on the other hand becomes the future as he manages to break away from these traditions, and with this marks a true new beginning (Spengler: 1). By Tolstoy himself only a translation (by Ar.; most probably César M. Arconada) of a fragment of a lecture book he created for schools was actually published in the magazine (La Gaceta Literaria 42). For the Gaceta Literaria the ‘centenario’ seems to have been more of an occasion to bring together literary culture and the workers’ movement than to earnestly worship Tolstoy and his work.
The Gaceta Literaria was not the only publication using the ‘Centenario de Tolstoy’ as an opportunity to evoke the Russian author. Amauta noted the jubilee in issue 17 (September 1928) in its ‘Calendario’, and two issues later, in November, added another contribution with ‘Ex catedra: Tolstoi novelista’ by John Galsworthy, in the section ‘Panorama móvil’. The Cuban Revista de Avance also dedicated a note to this occasion in issue 26, of 15 September 1928, with the simple title ‘León Tolstoi’, and later that same year in issue 19 published ‘Tolstoi y nuestra America’ (no author given, likely the editorial staff).
Next to the Gaceta Literara only Claridad treated Tolstoy more comprehensively, which does not come as a surprise given its left-wing political agenda and Russocentrism. Its issue 167 of 22 September 1928 was dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of Tolstoy, as the front cover showcases.
Figure 5: Cover Claridad 167
The etching on the cover shows a portrait of the Russian writer by José Planof. The lines underneath his name read ‘El apostól Yasnaia Poliana a quien todo el mundo consagra su homenaje en el centenario de su nacimiento’ and list in preview style some of the contributions of this issue that are concerned with Tolstoy (Claridad 167). Most of the content in this issue was dedicated to him. Claridad published a short biography of him by an unknown author, next to more specific interpretations of his life such as ‘Lenin y Tolstoy’ by Juan Lazarte or ‘Tolstoy en el cinematógrafo’ by another anonymous contributor, and it printed one chapter of Romain Rolland’s study La vie de Tolstoi, titled ‘La respuesta de Asia a Tolstoy’, translated by Armando Stiro. As with the contributions in La Gaceta Literaria, the opinions on Tolstoy’s significance for posterity varied with the different authors. Juan Coq in ‘En el Centenario de Tolstoy’ devalued Tolstoy’s artistic and intellectual impact when he stated that ‘no nos admira su estilo, pues sus novelas tienen un marcado sabor romántico ni sus teorías del amor, teorias un tanto alejadas de la realidad [...]’ but rather ‘[n]os admira en él la valentía de sus opiniones, la entereza de su conducta proselitista’ (Coq: 26), thus seeing him more as a moral than artistic paragon. This obviously conflicts with the fact that the magazine also published several single quotations from Tolstoy next to a whole compendium of ‘Reflexiones de Tolstoy sobre Arte’ in this issue. Juan Lazarte in ‘Lenin y Tolstoy’ even wrote: ‘La visión de Tolstoy es infinita. No se para ni en las montañas ni en el cielo, obedece la inmensidad, como cuando el hijo de la estepa o la llanura, levanta sus ojos en busca de los arcanos de la vida y de la muerte. Lenin es el presente. Tolstoy el porvenir’ (Lazarte: 10); virtually claiming the direct opposite of what Spengler had written. While there is a clear cluster of Tolstoy contributions surrounding the centennial of his birth his own writings were more present over the whole lifespan of Claridad than they were in other publications. Before the issue dedicated to him, texts of his had been published in issues 4, 138, and 165. Later issues that featured him are issues 250, 284, and 286-287. They are a mixture of literary and socio-philosophical texts. At least for Claridad, Tolstoy’s thinking was seemingly still a valuable source for driving the discourse of the magazine even if this impression crumbles a little in light of the comments of Juan Coq, who was a regular contributor to the magazine from 1927 to 1929.
The republishing of Tolstoy’s texts needs to be read and interpreted in this context. Most of his texts were reprinted around the time of the anniversary. The contextualization within the publications surrounding the anniversary suggest a certain ambivalence of the avant-garde towards Tolstoy and his writings. His commemoration all in all was more an occasion to push the workers’ movement agenda, and seize the existing public interest in Russian affairs, than to worship him as a literary ancestor. As such the centennial had a clear function while Tolstoy as a historical figure was merely a means to an end.
2.2 Political magazines – political thought leaders
How much of a conscious decision it is to honour historical figures becomes even more clear when looking at the cases of Rafael Barrett and José Ingenieros, two of the political thinkers that were acknowledged in the magazines. Both had been dead for only a short time, when Claridad decided to honour them in its pages, and other magazines likewise reprinted texts of theirs; with Barrett having been dead for 18 years and Ingenieros only for two years when the leftist publication dedicated an issue to each. These timespans seem rather arbitrary and the anniversaries of their death even more constructed than usual jubilees. When looking closer at the dynamics of the publication of these two issues, and reading the republishing of the texts by Barrett and Ingenieros together with the secondary commentary, it becomes clear that there was an intent behind this commemoration. The magazines, or more specifically Claridad, were making this effort in order to inscribe both of them, but particularly Ingenieros, into history, in order to create an intellectual heritage and point of reference for future generations.
2.2.1 Rafael Barrett
In December 1928 Rafael Barrett was honoured on ‘occasion’ of the 18th anniversary of his death with issue 173 of Claridad dedicated specially to him (fig. 6).
Figure 6: Cover Claridad 173
El poeta de las rebeliones, en el XVIII aniversario de su muerte
This type of anniversary clearly does not fall in line with any of the standard memorial periods, which are usually divisible by 5. By contrast, 18 years seems rather arbitrary, and like a marked excuse to restore Barrett to popular consciousness. As a note by the editors at the beginning of the issue suggests, there was another, more profane reason for the timing of this anniversary. The publishing house connected to the magazine had just published the book Barrett by Alvaro Yunque, and was planning to compile a complete edition of Rafael Barrett’s work (Claridad 173: 1). This explains why there was no commentary on the Spanish thinker within this issue, as apparently this was more an advertising stunt than a collective memory practice. This impression is corroborated by the fact that no other magazine picks up on the ‘occasion’. The only other republication of texts by Barrett were ‘La elocuencia’, a fictional account in Horizonte (Jalapa) in April 1926, and the essay ‘El esfuerzo’ in Amauta in December 1927. Other than that Barrett is not mentioned or reprinted in any other publication. Still, for Claridad he is clearly a marked point of reference for the development of the Argentinian socialist movement, an assertion which is further substantiated by the catalogue of its publishing house.
The space that Rafael Barrett’s texts occupy in the issue, and in Claridad in general, is, in comparison to that of the literary historical figures, rather large. In this issue, three contributions from Rafael Barrett’s body of work were featured. The first one, ‘Pensamientos de Rafael Barrett’, is a small collection of quotations of a philosophical nature, half a page long and divided in two parts that start on page 8 and end on page 30. Then there is the lecture ‘El Concepto del Infinito’ that he gave in October 1905 in Asunción (Paraguay), a discourse which stretches over three and a half pages, and which is marked as taken from the Uruguayan magazine La Pluma. The same issue also contains ‘Buenos Aires’, a fictional description that begins with a gloomy early morning scene, with the poor and tired filling the streets. The homodiegetic narrator then contrasts this image with the tableau of the remains of a luxurious party from the night before, apparently inside the narrator’s house. A poor man approaches the place and rummages through the discarded waste in front of the building, finding some peace of chewed-up bone and disappearing with his prize. The narrator is visibly shaken by this scene and claims on witnessing this. ‘Comprendí en aquel instante, la grandeza del gesto anarquista, y admiré el júbilo magnifico con que la dinamita atruena y raja el vil hormiguero humano’ (Barrett 1828: 26). The depiction of the stark contrast between the decadent life of the wealthy with the suffering of the poor perfectly coincided with the worldview of the leftist magazine Claridad. No wonder then that the Argentinian publication continuously featured texts of the Spanish thinker. In the first issue, Barrett rant against ‘Patriotismo’ is published. The third issue contains the poem ‘Agua fuerte’, marked as previously unpublished, posthumous and dedicated to the Spanish impressionist Eliseu Meifrén. ‘Los Prudentes’, a short philosophical reflection in issue 134, was also marked as previously unpublished, and it was followed by several more reprints of his texts, leading up to and beyond issue 173, the high water mark of his inclusion in the magazine with the three aforementioned texts. The commentary on him is, however, as mentioned above, rather scarce. Apart from the note by the editors in issue 173 there are only two more instances in the project corpus in which Barrett is mentioned in the titles; and both of these in Claridad.
Juan Lazarte in issue 138 reviewed an essay by J.R. Forteza. He prefaced this review with a personal assessment of Barrett’s significance for Latin America, writing that ‘puede decirse con certeza ha tenido tanta influencia como Bakounine y tal vez, hoy más leídas sean sus obras que los del pensador ruso’ (Lazarte: 29). The essay on him is well worth reading, as it introduces ‘Barrett, hombre verdaderamente grande, de cuya labor y cosecha, estamos viviendo en América’ (Lazarte: 30). In issue 162, with ‘Rafael Barrett’, Carlos de Lucca supplied an equally favourable portrait of the Spanish essayist, underlining his importance for the Latin American youth. It is in these comments that Rafael Barrett becomes visible, not just as a historical figure, but one that continued to influence the present, and whose texts and thoughts were received as part of the contemporary political discourse. On the one hand, he was a predecessor, and as such had already inspired honourative practices such the publication of essays and books about him, and the compilation of his complete works. On the other hand, however, his thoughts were very much alive and constitutive for the political movement.
2.2.2 José Ingenieros
José Ingenieros’ texts were reprinted a third less often than Barrett’s, at 14 compared to 21 times. Yet he was met with much greater commentary, as Claridad not only dedicated an issue to him, but turned this entire issue into an homage, with most contributions being about the Sicilian-born thinker only two years after his death. In the issue Ingenieros was celebrated as a true pioneer to current thinking and idol to the youth. ‘Ingenieros’, it states in the editorial, ‘es el prototipo del varón legendario que escruta en el porvenir y se afana por descubrir en el mar agitado de los hombres, la suprema verdad que sirva para hacer de la vida un pasaje sereno de bellas armonías’ (Claridad 145: 1), thus setting the overall tone for the publication. He was, in a slight difference to Barrett, already in a process of being historicized, and his life was analysed ‘a la distancia del tiempo’ (Claridad 145: 1). At the same time, the editorial suggested that Ingenieros would live on in his writings and thoughts. Transposing his ideas by means of commemorating him to the youth was not a mere act of devotion but an effort to keep alive his attitudes and his admirable, timeless ideals. The editorial expressed this as the objective of the issue (Claridad 145: 1), and the articles that followed, such as ‘Ingenieros. Maestro de juventud’ by Salomón Rodríguez and ‘José Ingenieros y la nueva generación’ by C. Sánchez Viamonte, directly supported this goal. The whole issue then was an introduction to the life and work of José Ingenieros, explicitly directed at a younger audience. His own writing, however, stayed in the background, and only a short letter from him to Alfredo Palacios was included. Other issues included larger and more public texts, such as ‘La Revolución Rusa’ in issue 146, in which he cautiously defended the Russian Revolution, downplaying the death of its victims as a sort of inevitable evil in the overthrow of a vicious regime (Ingenieros: 28), and other republications followed, most of which were of a political or philosophical nature, often with the youth as the imagined audience. As with Barrett, it was almost exclusively Claridad that commented on Ingenieros, with the notable exception of Martín Fierro in this case, which published ‘Ingenieros’, a hybrid of obituary and critique, in its 25th issue of 14 November 1925, a fortnight after he died. The text, so shortly after his demise, already called for a historicising and canonising process of Ingenieros and his thought.
As these examples of the treatment of José Ingenieros and the republishing of his texts suggest, there was a real, conscious effort made to inscribe him into history, and make sure he was available as a predecessor and pioneer thinker for younger generations. The line between life and death was marked clearly, and a past was created so obviously that is appears rather forced, as this commemorative practice was implemented only two years after his death, with the other commemorated actors being dead for more than ten years. The striving of the two Argentinian magazines to make him part of the intellectual heritage of Latin America can be described as successful, in that he today is one of the better-known thinkers of the early 20th century. It also shows, in the case of Claridad, that the magazine inscribed itself clearly into an intellectual lineage leading back to him.
The republishing of the texts by Ingenieros, as well as of those by Barrett, needs to be interpreted in light of this conscious effort to create historical figures. Reprinting the texts made them more widely available, and provided the readers with a small, selected canon. It marked the timeliness of their thinking and suggested that they were still valid and vivid sources of reference. By contrast, the literary authors Góngora and Tolstoy were the past, and read as such. Góngora functioned as a predecessor for some vanguards, and as a way to inscribe the vanguards in history, not vice versa, while Tolstoy functioned as a corridor to Russia and the workers’ movement. Both were already historicised, and received by the magazines in this way. Ingenieros and Barrett, however, became the object of a wilful process of history-making.
Anonymous. ‘Ingenieros.’ In: Martín Fierro 25 (1925). 2.
Anonymous. ‘Crónica del III Centenario de Góngora. La Organización.’ In: Boletín de la Real Academia de Ciencias, Bellas Letras y Nobles Artes de Córdoba, Year VI, No. 18 (1927). 237-258.
Arias, Jesus. ‘El bautizo de la Generación del 27. Granada conmemora con una gran exposición el 75º aniversario del homenaje a Góngora.’ In: El País (2002) Online. [last accessed 11 August 2020].
Aznar Soler, Manuel. Republica literaria y revolución (1920-1939). Sevilla: Renacimiento, 2010.
Bernal Romero, Manuel. ‘El nacimiento de la Generación del 27. El centenario de Góngora en Córdoba.’ From the essay La invención de la Generación del 27. Spain: Editorial Bernice, 2011.
Barrett, Rafael. ‘Buenos Aires.’ In: Claridad 173 (1928). 26.
Barrett, Rafael. ‘El concepto del infinito.’ In: Claridad 173 (1928). 9.
Barrett, Rafael. ‘Pensamientos de Rafael Barrett.’ In: Claridad 173 (1928). 8; 30.
Borges, Jorge Luis. ‘Para el centenario de Góngora.’ In: Martín Fierro 41. 1.
Burdorf, Dieter. ‘Die Strahlkraft der Namen. Zu Personenamen in Gedichten und deren Paratexten.’ In: Claudia Hillebrandt et. al. (Eds.). Grundfragen der Lyrikologie 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019.
Cáliz Montes, Jessica. ‘Los obreros y la literatura: una sección de Julián Zugazaguitia para La Gaceta Literaria.’ In: Desde ambas laderas. Culturas entre la tradición y la modernidad. María Luisa Sotelo Vázquez et al. (Eds.). Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona, 2015. 127-136.
Chambers, Ross. ‘Baudelaire’s Dedicatory Practice.’ In: SubStance Vol. 17 No. 2. Reading in and around (1988). 5-17.
Coq, Juan. ‘En el Centenario de Tolstoy’ In: Claridad 167 (1928). 26-27.
De Lucca, Carlos. ‘Rafael Barrett.’ In: Claridad 162 (1928). 9-10.
Diego, Gerardo. La estela de Góngora. With a preface by Julio Neira. Santander: Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad de Cantabria, 2003.
Editorial department. ‘En el centenario de Góngora’ In: Revista de Avance 5 (1927). 97.
Editorial department. ‘Góngora: 1627-1927.’ In: Revista de Avance 4 (1927). 69.
Editorial department. ‘Notas y comentarios. Barrett’. In: Claridad 173 (1928). 1.
Garcia, Raúl Roa. ‘Góngora y la nueva poesia, por Francisco Ichaso.’ In: Revista de Avance 22 (1928). 131.
Genette, Gérard. Paratexe. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 2001.
Guillen, Jorge. ‘[No title]’ In: Litoral 5,6,7 (1927). 35.
Galsworthy, John. ‘Ex catedra: Tolstoi novelista.’ In: Amauta 19. (1928). 84-86.
Ichaso, Francisco. ‘Góngora y la nueva poesia.’ In: Revista de Avance 6 (1927). 127.
Ingenieros, José. ‘La Revolución Rusa.’ In: Claridad 146 (1927). 29.
Lama, Victor de. Poesía de la generación del 27: Antología crítica recomendada. Madrid: EDAF, 1997.
Lazarte, Juan. ‘Rafael Barrett. Ensayo de J.R. Forteza.’ In: Claridad 138 (1927). 29-30.
Lazarte, Juan. ‘Lenin y Tolstoy.’ In: Claridad 167 (1928). 9-10.
List Azurbide, Germán. ‘En el centenario de Góngora.’ In: Horizonte 10 (1928). 51-52.
Marasso, Arturo. ‘Góngora.’ In: Martín Fierro 41. (1927). 2.
(1) The focus lies on historical writers who were already deceased at the start of the publication of the magazines. There are some cases such as Juan B. Justo, José Carlos Mariátegui and Rafael Barradas, who died during the run time of the magazines, and they continued to be published beyond their death. However, these publications need to be read and interpreted separately as a prolongation of their lives or as part of a practice of mourning. This is supported by the empirical finding that most post mortem contributions by them rapidly decline after their demise and they slowly disappear from the magazines. The only exception would be Juan B. Justo, to whom, one year after his death, the 174th issue of Claridad is dedicated. This dedication of a whole issue to the illustrious figure can be read as another example of a willful inscription of Justo’s name into intellectual history by Claridad, parallel to the explanations regarding Barrett and Ingenieros towards the end of this article.
There is also the case of Goya who is commemorated in a similar way as Góngora, however, for the sake of comparability only writers will be used as examples for this study.
(2) ‘(aufrichtige oder unaufrichtige) Zurschaustellung einer (wie auch immer gearteten) Beziehung zwischen dem Autor und irgendeiner Person, Gruppe oder Entität’
(3) All translations: Teresa Herzgsell.
(4) Abril, Manuel; Abril, Xavier; Alonso, Dámaso; Bergamín, José; Borges, Norah; Cardoza y Aragón, Luis; De Carril, Adelina; Díez-Canedo, Enrique; Egurén, José María; España, Carlos; Ferrer Guardia, Francisco; Figari, Pedro; Giménez Caballero, Ernesto; Gómez de la Serna, Ramón; Gómez Rojas, José Domingo; Ichaso, Francisco; Jahl, Wladyslaw; Pancho; Ramón, Juan; Revista de Avance; Rivas Panedas; Rivera, Diego; Salinas, Pedro; Varona, Enrique José; Zeitlin, Israel; Zubilaga, Luis
(5) Barradas, Rafael; Acosta, Augustín; Bécquer, Gustavo Adolfo; Cansinos-Asséns, Rafael; Fernández Almagro, Melchor; Góngora y Argote, Luis de; Guillén, Jorge; Güiraldes, Ricardo; Haedo, Ignacio; Haya de la Torre, Víctor Rául; Lasso de la Vega, Rafael; Mariátegui, José Carlos; Peralta, Alejandro; Prados, Emilio; Silva Valdés, Fernán; Valle, Adriano del
(6) Alberti, Rafael(4); Marinello, Juan(6); Rivas Panedas, Humberto(6); Torre, Guillermo de(6); Erato, Germaine(6); Borges, Jorge Luís(7); Mañach, Jorge(8); Amauta(10); Claridad(69)
(7) Nevertheless, there is a large difference between the two magazines. As mentioned, there are 68 dedications to Claridad in the magazine itself while there are only 10 to Amauta.
(8) Two dedications are marked only as ‘Rivas Panedas’ and as such could possibly have been directed at his brother José Rivas Panedas, himself a prolific protagonist of the Spanish avant-garde circles.
(9) Germaine Erato is the odd one out here. He receives all of his six dedications by Rafael Lozano in a set of sonnets in Prisma’s 23rd issue. Because of this reason, he will not play a role in the following discussion.
(10) Another noteworthy observation is the strange separation of the magazine Amauta from its founder José Carlos Mariátegui, who is better connected to the Latin American political context. A possible explanation for this could be that the people who saw themselves in line with the aesthetic program of the magazine, known for its not always coherent divide in the political and the aesthetic, did not necessarily agree with Mariátegui’s political position. The same occurs, by the way, when visualizing all dedications regarding Mañach, Marinello and the Revista de Avance. In this case a divide has also been noted between the more neutral programme of the magazine and the overtly political positionings of its editors (this network is not included here due to its huge number of nodes rendering it unreadable).
(11) The values concerning the deceased refer only to the contributors that were already deceased before the start of the magazine’s run, for the reasons given in endnote 1.
(12) The same is true for other names on this list as well. Apollinaire is mentioned three times, Rimbaud in four titles (two of which refer to images), Papasseit in six titles (two referring to images), and William Blake is not discussed at all according to the titles.
(13) Obviously, there is a private side to this reoccurring memory practice as well. Birthday parties and wedding anniversaries are good examples of this.
(14) ‘Historische Jubiläen bilden für das begehende Kollektiv Identität, Kontinuität und Tradition. Historische Jubiläen können damit die kollektive Selbstvergewisserung d.h. die Identitätsbildung von Gruppen, stützen, sowohl in historischer als auch sozialer Hinsicht. Sie konstruieren die Eigengeschichte einer Gruppe und schaffen für diese Verortungsmöglichkeiten und Anknüpfungspunkte. Und nicht zuletzt verknüpfen historische Jubiläen die Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft einer Gemeinschaft und schaffen so Kontinuität’ (Kollmann: 30).
(15) This centennial was organised by a group of young academics from the Real Academia de Ciencias, Bellas Letras y Nobles Artes de Córdoba ‘ayudada por las corporaciones públicas de la ciudad’ (Boletín 1927: 238), as the pertaining academic Boletín states. However, it did not receive proper support from the national state, and was even opposed by official actors.
(16) Itañol: sottolineare (it) = underline, point out
(17) This was a rather one-sided affair, as Aznar Soler argues. In issue 35, as he points out, a printmaker had denounced the lack of interest of the political wing of the workers’ movement to supply the working class with opportunities for sufficient cultural education. This the printmaker linked back to the miserable condition the Biblioteca de la Casa del Pueblo had been in (Aznar Soler: 137 f.).
A PDF of this article can be downloaded from the DARIAH repository. (https://repository.de.dariah.eu/1.0/dhcrud/21.11113/0000-000D-1D0B-8)