121
My interpretation is derived from claims by Harry Elmer Barnes (A History of Historical Writing, New York, Dover, 1963; 2nd rpt. of 1937 ed.), Benedetto Croce (trans. Douglas Ainslie, History: Its Theory and Practice, New York, Russell and Russell, 1960), and Juan de Contreras, Marqués de Lozoya («El concepto romántico de la historia, discurso...», cuaderno 81 of Anales de la Universidad de Valencia, XI, 1930-31). (N. del A.)
122
This chapter acquires special significance in the light of an article published by C. A. Jones nearly twenty years ago («Galdós' Second Thoughts on Doña Perfecta», Modern Language Review, LIV, 4, October 1959, pp. 570-573). The article points out a change in the endings of Doña Perfecta, as the publication of the novel shifts from its initial serial form (in the Revista de España, 1876) to its first bookform edition (La Guirnalda publishers, later in 1876). The curious change occurs in chapter XXXII, in the content of Don Cayetano's letters. In the first version, Don Cayetano reports the following in the last two of his total of five letters. Doña Perfecta is planning a marriage to Jacinto, who is twenty-two years her junior. Perfecta has grown more attractive since Pepe Rey's death, but even this is not enough to make Don Cayetano or Jacinto's mother, María Remedios, understand the proposed union. In fact, Don Cayetano expressly judges the marriage to be a mistake. This information is given at the end of the fourth letter of the first version. In the fifth letter, Galdós is at his most contrived and melodramatic. Cayetano reports that Doña Perfecta and the women and servants of the house had been preparing a festive, fatted pig. Into the room came Jacinto, who slipped on a fallen scrap of greasy meat, stumbled against his mother, María Remedios, who was (of course) wielding a knife. The jolt caused María Remedios to fatally stab her own son.
Now, this is about as «hammy» as you can get. Jones's criticism was that, apart from the «crude and melodramatic effect», this ending belies the natures of certain main characters, especially Doña Perfecta, insofar as these had already been developed along different lines. So, it appears that Jones's purpose is to defend the relative integrity of Doña Perfecta's motherhood as a motive force for the events in the novel. He claims that «the variants in the two versions have some bearing on the interpretation of the character of the protagonist, and to some extent on the author's intentions in writing the novel». Jones never really exploits the second of these two factors: namely, the bearing that the revision of the original version has on the interpretation of the author's intentions in writing the novel. Precisely these author's intentions are what concern me, although they are not likely to be the same intentions that Jones had in mind. (N. del A.)
123
In Dos ensayos (México, Porrúa, 1956), pp. 9-41. (N. del A.)
124
Ibid., p. 33. (N. del A.)
125
Rodríguez (op. cit.) has noted similarly that «the deliberate insistence that human beings make up the substance of History, the literary expression of 'historia e intrahistoria', sets Galdós apart from all but the greatest historical novelists of any age» (p. 198). (N. del A.)
126
Enguídanos (op. cit.) claims, correctly, that «Galdós entiende la historia... como arte, en el cual los términos vida e historia son inseparables» (p. 240). Moreover, he rightly links certain of the «Episodios» to other of Galdós' novels, in such a way as to suggest a modal approach: «[...] me parece ver en los últimos tomos de los Episodios una tensión en el ánimo del escritor que sólo se compara con la alcanzada en los momentos culminantes de su arte: en Fortunata y Jacinta, en Miau, en Misericordia. Dicha tensión se expresa en forma de diálogo íntimo entre la realidad española y su historiador» (p. 241). (N. del A.)
127
José Caveda (y Nava), «Historia crítica de los falsos cronicones», Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia, I, 1 (November 1877), pp. 33-48. (N. del A.)
128
Nicolás Antonio, Censura de historias fabulosas. An edition was published posthumously by Gregorio Mayáns i Siscar (Valencia: Antonio Bordazarde Artazu, 1742), who was also the biographer of Nicolás Antonio. (N. del A.)
129
[El aparato de notas del original aparece al final del artículo, en las páginas 87 y 88. (N. del E.)]
130
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the Centenary Alumni Association for the grant which made this study possible. (N. del A.)