Familiar expressions of twentieth-century Argentine nationalism involve such matters as Y.P.F., Argentina’s ambition to extend her sovereignty to the Falkland Islands, and her reluctance to cooperate within the framework of the Organization of American States. In addition to economic, political, and juridical nationalism there is the less familiar, but no less vital cultural nationalism that has had a significant history in Argentina during the twentieth century.
The preeminent Argentine cultural nationalist is Ricardo Rojas. Poet, historian, teacher, educator, dramatist, and author of some thirty books, Rojas devoted his entire life to the promotion of cultural nationalism. It is because he played such a key role that much of the growth and development of this phenomena can be presented in terms of his life.
The originator of cultural nationalism and its most complete theorist was Johann Gottfried von Herder.1 In Herder’s writings three concepts stand forth and support the structure of his thought. The first is the Volk, which he identified as that group in society which was true to its original nature, which had “remained upon its national foundations,” and which, therefore, was the most genuine and authentic group in society. The second concept is Volksgeist; the idea that there prevails among the Volk a collective, spiritual force which is the creative force in a society and which provides it with ideals and standards. The third concept is what is today called Kulturauftrag; the view that a Volk or nationality, inspired by its Volksgeist, has a cultural mission to perform.
Herder’s concept of the nature of cultural nationalism indicates that a clear and complete form of cultural nationalism did not appear in Argentina until the first decade of the twentieth century. Throughout the nineteenth century to be sure, there had been manifestations of patriotism which involved the concepts of the patria, of hero worship, and of respect for the flag; there had been calls for cultural independence, for political union, and for cultivation of American themes. At the turn of the century, a nativist movement developed in letters, as well as a spirit of patriotism among the immigrants. But these in terms of the key ideas of Herder cannot be called complete expressions of cultural nationalism.2
The first appearance in Argentina of cultural nationalism containing the ideas of Volk, Volksgeist, and Kulturauftrag was in 1906. That year Ricardo Rojas, from the province of Santiago, a descendant of one of the original settlers, and Emilio Bécher, from the province of Rosario, the descendant of a Swiss immigrant, published a series of articles in La Nación. Bêcher attacked the Argentine intelligentsia’s blind acceptance of cosmopolitanism, eulogized the group which had “remained upon its national foundation,” and expounded the view that the greatest contribution to the development of the Argentine nation had been made by the Hispanic Argentine group.3 Rojas wrote that nationality and nationalism had replaced patria and patriotism, that in the coming age only those groups with a collective conscience could survive and prosper, and that Argentina should aspire to be an ethnic and spiritual entity as well as a political entity.4
While Bécher had the better comprehension of Herder’s ideas, Rojas played the major role in introducing cultural nationalist thought to Argentina. After writing articles on patriotism and nationalism for the newspaper, La Nación, Rojas in 1909 sent to press his book La restauración nacionalista, which he had written as an educational report after a trip to Europe to study teaching methods. As much a nationalist manifesto as an educational report, his thesis was that Argentina, faced with the threat of invasion by foreign influence and ideas, needed to develop a collective conscience based on her own traditions. This could best be accomplished through the teaching of history in the public schools. Also, Argentine geography, language, folklore, and civics should be taught to help awaken a consciousness of the nationality and a spirit of nationalism.5
The next year, 1910, the centennial of the beginning of the Argentine war for independence, Rojas published his book, Blasón de plata. He described the evolution of the Argentine Volk, and found that the most important factors in the formation of the Argentine people were the Argentine soil, the Indian heritage, and the Spanish heritage. The Argentine soil possessed a powerful telluric force, Rojas asserted, a fuerza territorial which had had a profound influence in shaping the character of the people. Believing that the Indian made a key contribution to the Argentine nationality both in blood and spirit, he exalted the Indian heritage and condemned those who thought that Argentines were a people of a pure European race. The Spanish heritage had also played a key role, for it was responsible for the Argentine language, religion, and law. Rojas concluded that it was the fusion of these elements which formed the basis of the Argentine nationality.
It is of significance to note that the numerically important European immigrants played a minor role in Rojas’ theory. His position was that they should be included in the Argentine nationality because Argentina needed population. The three reasons he gave to explain why Europeans could be assimilated were: Argentines were magnanimous, the Argentine nationality was primarily spiritual rather than racial, and there was something about the Argentine soil which had a beneficent influence on all people and which in time would transform them into true Argentines. The resistance of certain groups to assimilation was, however, creating a crucial problem in the country. It was for this reason that he rejected Sarmiento’s interpretation that the basic struggle in Argentina was between civilization and barbarism and replaced it with his theory that the basic struggle was between exoticismo and indianismo, between what was imported and what was rooted.6
In Rojas’ next book he sought to describe the Argentine Volksgeist. This book was entitled La argentinidad, after a neologism which, it seems, was coined in 1910 by Miguel de Unamuno in an article published in La Nación. To determine the exact character of the Argentine Volksgeist, Rojas undertook a study of the period during which Argentina struggled to establish her political independence. Rejecting the popular view that the revolution was inspired by European liberalism and was led by the city of Buenos Aires, Rojas concluded that Argentine liberalism, federalism, and democracy were native phenomena and that the authentic leaders of the revolution were from the provinces. That is, as in Frederick Jackson Turner’s thesis of American democracy, Argentine democracy came out of the interior. Rojas concluded that the Argentine national spirit was composed of native elements, that it was a liberalism which was different from that of Europe, that it was the most authentic type of liberalism, federalism, and democracy in the Americas, and that Argentina was leading the American people in the development of a New World civilization.7
By 1916, with the publication of La argentinidad, Rojas had worked out the major concepts of his cultural nationalism. In Blasón de plata he had presented his view of the Volk; in La argentinidad he had described the Argentine Volksgeist; and in both of these and in his other writings he had presented the concept of cultural mission, or Kulturauftrag.
Hence, between 1906 and 1916 Rojas developed a complete form of cultural nationalism, and his writings and ideas best describe the character of cultural nationalism in Argentina at this time. He played a major role in popularizing seven themes which since have been recurrent in Argentine nationalism: the necessity of nationalizing education, the rehabilitation of the Spanish and Indian heritages, the importance of the study of folklore, the importance of the provinces in the life of the nation, the cult of the gaucho, and the cult of the “spirit of May.”8 Although at certain points his nationalism was contradictory to liberalism, its fundamental character was liberal and democratic.9
This then was the nature of Argentine cultural nationalism up to World War I. But because of World War I and subsequent developments between 1918 and 1930 another type of nationalist thought appeared. Though Argentina remained neutral throughout the war, the global conflict nevertheless had profoundly disturbed the country, particularly the intelligentsia, for there appeared a schism between those who were pro-Ally and those who were pro-German. Consequently, a sizable literature was produced in defense of these positions, most of it favoring the Allies, but a significant portion of it defending Germany. Some of the pro-German literature had undercurrents of anti-liberal thought, and, therefore, it can be considered among the earliest attacks on liberal democracy in Argentina.10
After the war the first open attacks on liberal democracy began. Ideas that Ramiro de Maeztu had expressed in 1916, in Crisis del âhumanismo, now became popular among certain groups;11 the fascist movement of Mussolini was hailed as the beginning of a new era of intelligence; and Charles Maurras’ Action Française soon had avid readers in Argentina. Manuel Gálvez, who perhaps can be considered the earliest anti-liberal nationalist among the Argentine intelligentsia, continued to propagate anti-liberal thought, as is seen in his novel La tragedia de un hombre fuerte (1922) and in his essay El espíritu de aristocracia (1924).12 Carlos Ibarguren, who had shown similar tendencies, now undertook to present in his course of history at the University of Buenos Aires a more sympathetic view of the regime of Juan Manuel de Rosas.13 And Leopoldo Lugones, who had always been a critic of liberal democracy, now crossed over from left to right to espouse the rule of the elite, la hora de la espada, and undertook a campaign to discredit the liberal democratic system.14
Though this anti-liberal nationalist thought continued to grow and to influence opinion in the period 1916-1930, at this time it contributed little to the growth of the literature on cultural nationalism. Little was published, and what did appear was largely political rather than cultural. In fact the only significant works on the cultural aspect of anti-liberal thought were by Carlos Ibarguren in his study of Juan Manuel de Rosas,15 and by Manuel Gálvez in his El espíritu de aristocracia.
For this reason, the major work done in the field of cultural nationalism continued to be that of Rojas.16 Though the climate of opinion which prevailed among the Argentine intelligentsia became increasingly pessimistic, Rojas managed to retain an optimistic view of Argentina’s future, and his nationalism retained its liberal orientation. In fact, his liberalism became somewhat more pronounced, and during these years he was more active and productive than ever. He wrote La literatura argentina and Eurindia, in addition to four other books, and edited the 29 volume series of Argentine classics known as the Biblioteca Argentina. He was also the leading spirit in founding and directing the Institute of Argentine Literature and Folklore. His productivity during this period is truly amazing, for much of his time was consumed with administrative responsibilities as Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters at the University of Buenos Aires (1922-1926) and then as Rector (1926-1930).
With regard to his cultural nationalism, Rojas’ two most important books of this period are La literatura argentina and Eurindia. His magnum opus is La literatura argentina, his history of Argentine literature, appearing in four massive volumes from 1917 to 1922. An attempt to write a complete history of the major works of Argentine letters. Rojas hoped to show how the national spirit had manifested itself in the past so that in the future the younger generation might be guided along correct paths in attempts to promote a national culture. Setting out to do this work at a time when few documents had been assembled and when the general attitude was that Argentina did not have a literature, he surprised his contemporaries first by his audacity in undertaking the project and then by the degree of success with which he carried out his intention. Believing as did many intellectuals of that time, that progress was not linear but cyclical, Rojas divided his history into four cycles, los gauchescos, los coloniales, los proscriptos, and los modernos. Presenting Los gauchescos first because he felt that it was the literature in Argentina which most strongly reflected national characteristics, he traced its evolution from colonial days to the creation of the Argentine folk-hero Martín Fierro, the archetype of the Argentine nationality. He presented the second cycle, Los coloniales, as possessing only vague reflections of what were to become the national characteristics, because the colonial period lacked liberty and the country was as yet a land of slaves. The third cycle, Los proscriptos, was so-called because most of the literature was written by Argentines in exile. It was a literature which was born in a time of political adversity and strongly reflected the national political ideals. The last cycle, Los modernos, was one in which there had been great productivity, but one in which Argentine writers, overwhelmed by foreign influence, had not been able to assimilate properly the best of the foreign with that which was native. Concluding on an optimistic note, he said that Argentina was about to enter into a golden age of literature, a national cycle, which consisted of all the best elements of the past.17
Rojas’ second book of importance in this period was his Eurindia, which is a synthesis of all of his former ideas and a capstone to his thought. His preoccupation here is with the development of an esthetic theory that would provide guiding principles for the creation of a national literature and culture. But what is of particular interest in the development of his thought in this book is that, though he continued to stress the influence of the soil, the Indian heritage, and the Spanish heritage, as he had in Blasón de plata, he now gave the European contribution a place equal to these. This increased emphasis on the European contribution to Argentine culture is explicit in his title Eurindia, which signified that not only American but also European influences had gone into the making of the Argentine national culture. Thus, Eurindia, written at a time when anti-foreign sentiment was increasing, can be considered as a revision of his theory of exoticismo vs. indianismo presented in Blasón de plata, and as a plea for reconciliation and tolerance of all of the elements in Argentine culture.18
But though Rojas gave more emphasis to the European contributions to Argentine culture, made statements against xenophobia, and was concerned with the need for nationalism to be intelligent, he did not speak out against the anti-liberal nationalistic ideas that were beginning to be propagated. Why he maintained silence when a sizable and influential group among the intelligentsia was speaking in favor of la hora de la espada, denouncing liberal democracy, and repudiating many of the nineteenth-century liberal traditions of the country, which he had proclaimed as the authentic national tradition, is difficult to determine. Whatever his reason, he remained silent, preoccupied with the further development of the major themes of cultural nationalism, while anti-liberalism among the Argentine intelligentsia continued to grow.
La hora de la espada which the anti-liberal Argentine intellectuals called for arrived in September of 1930, with the overthrow of eighty years of constitutional rule. The phrase “the army is one with the people and the people one with the army” became a justification by some intellectuals for the revolution and a new period was ushered in, a period (from 1930 to 1943) in which Argentine nationalism became increasingly economic and political and in which cultural nationalism became increasingly anti-liberal.19 Rightist ideology flooded the country. Charles Maurras’ Action Française, Ramiro de Maeztu’s Defensa de hispanidad, and Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf were widely read, and nationalist groups formed to promote these rightist ideas of nationalism and fascism.20
Although overshadowed by economic and political nationalism, cultural nationalism grew steadily during this period. In the early 1930’s anti-liberal nationalists in the cultural field were encouraged by a national commission of culture which was created for the purpose of promoting the study and propagation of the national culture. With official encouragement the anti-liberal nationalists began to attack the liberal orientation of the Argentine schools.21
Since Rojas was a convinced believer in the liberal Argentine tradition, he was greatly disheartened by the Revolution of 1930, which swept away constitutional government, liberty of the press, and individual rights. He condemned it as reactionary and as a fascist remedy. Earlier he had preferred to remain apart from politics, but after the Revolution of 1930 he considered it his duty to sacrifice his intellectual peace to the defense of the citizenry.
Thus, Rojas joined the Radical Party, the personalista branch. He was soon active on committees, as a speaker at political rallies, as a candidate for office, and as a writer of campaign material. Between November of 1931 and February of 1932 he wrote Radicalismo de mañana, in which he spelled out the economic and political implications of his cultural nationalism. The book included a history of the Radical Party, an investigation of the problems confronting the nation, and a suggested platform for the party. In tracing the history of radicalism he equated it with the “spirit of May” and la argentinidad. In his program he called for land reform, anti-trust legislation, the social use of private property, and the expropriation of certain key industries. Rojas apparently thought that the time was at hand for the creation of one national party—a party which was above and beyond factions of left and right.22
Rojas was active in the Party for two years, but in the fall of 1933 his political activity was brought abruptly to a halt when he was arrested on the charge of conspiring against the government, a charge which was never substantiated. He was sent to Martín García Island and then to Tierra del Fuego, where he was incarcerated from January to May, 1934. After his release Rojas decided not to re-enter politics. The reason he gave to some of his friends was that no one—neither his colleagues, the youth, his friends, nor the party leaders—had responded to his call.23
Radicalismo de mañana neither stimulated a political awakening nor attracted much serious attention, but another book which Rojas wrote that year, a biography of San Martín,—El santo de la espada—did both. He wrote this partly to offset the work of the anti-liberal nationalists, who, in addition to rehabilitating the name of Juan Manuel de Rosas, were attempting to make San Martín appear as a supporter of la hora de la espada. They made much of the fact that San Martín willed his sword to the dictator Rosas. Rojas’ purpose in his biography was to show that San Martín could not have subscribed to the ideas of the hour of the sword, and that San Martín was not a supporter of the country’s military tradition. This biography rapidly became Rojas’ most popular book, selling 60,000 copies by 1943.24
From Rojas’ writings it is clear that in the 1940’s he was still a liberal nationalist. In fact, the threat to the nation’s liberal traditions and his struggle against these forces strengthened his liberalism. But while he sought to check the anti-liberal forces, and while his disciples Ismael Moya, Antonio Pagés Larraya, and Alfredo Coviello expounded his type of cultural nationalism, the cultural manifestations of anti-liberal nationalism steadily became more pronounced.25 Although his type of cultural nationalism was the oldest and most fully developed, he and his followers were no longer the principal cultivators of the themes of cultural nationalism. Others had joined the nationalist crusade and were treating the same themes in a different spirit and from a different point of view. Along with revising the seven original themes of liberal cultural nationalism to suit their taste, the anti-liberal nationalists had added two of their own—the cult of Juan Manuel de Rosas and the cult of the sword.26
For a time in the late 1930’s it looked as though Argentina might return to her liberal constitutional tradition, but in 1943 a group of military officers, schooled in European fascist ideas as well as in the ideas of the anti-liberal Argentine nationalists of the 1930’s, seized control of the government, and the country entered a period of totalitarian rule which was to last for twelve years.
The government almost immediately took measures against its critics. Gustavo Martínez Zuviría, a former director of the Biblioteca Nacional who was known for his popular novels and anti-semitic writings, was named minister of education in 1943. Soon after his nomination to this post he undertook measures to purge the educational system of its “anti-national” elements.
When Perón came to power, there was a reversal of the educational policies of the preceding regime which permitted the schools to reestablish their autonomy, but he shortly altered this policy and carried out an even more complete purge of the educational system. By the end of 1947 about ninety per cent of the academic staff had been removed. Large numbers of the intelligentsia went into exile, and a new group of intellectuals of the anti-liberal and peronista persuasion assumed control of the cultural life of the nation.27
As a result of the university purge and the official encouragement of the anti-liberal brand of cultural nationalism, the liberal type of cultural nationalism which Ricardo Rojas represented reached its nadir. This is not to say that the voice of Ricardo Rojas was completely silenced. During this period of adversity he stayed in the country, continued to write, and managed to play a role in the intellectual life of the nation. At this time Rojas wrote El profeta de la pampa, the life of Sarmiento.28 While ostensibly a biography of Sarmiento, it was an indirect attack on the anti-liberals, as his biography of San Martín had been in the 1930’s. His purpose was to offset the growing sarmientophobia which the anti-liberals were deliberately cultivating through both books and the classroom. Although in early life Rojas had been critical of many of Sarmiento’s ideas, he had always regarded Sarmiento as one of the greatest national figures that Argentina had produced. Now, after his experience with anti-liberalism, he was more sympathetic with the liberal views of Sarmiento and wrote a biography which portrayed him as representing the true national spirit. Upon publication the biography was well-received, and the first edition shortly was sold out. The government was unhappy with this success, and when the National Commission of Culture awarded it the Premio Nacional de la Literatura, the government caused the decision to be reversed.29
But though Rojas wrote critically of the regime and though he continued to preach his doctrine of liberal cultural nationalism, he was ineffectual in his attempts to arrest the growth of anti-liberal nationalism in the country. From 1943 to 1955 he had the unhappy experience of seeing the nationalism of the anti-liberals became government policy and the nationalism of Perón become the nationalism of the masses.
Rojas lived to witness the overthrow of Perón in 1955. He hoped that his type of nationalism could now come to be the nationalism of the country, but at the time of his death in September, 1957, it was not at all certain which type of cultural nationalism would dominate in the coming era.
..............
The life and writings of Ricardo Rojas reflect the historical stages through which Argentine cultural nationalism passed and indicate some of its salient characteristics. In the first stage, the stage of its introduction, Argentine cultural nationalism was fundamentally liberal. It grew out of a movement of nativism and literary nationalism which was at its peak in the period 1906 to 1916. Ricardo Rojas played the dominant role in shaping its character and philosophy and in popularizing its major themes. During World War I Argentine cultural nationalism developed an anti-liberal branch and entered a second stage. Rojas continued to be the principal exponent of cultural nationalism and it continued to be predominantly liberal from 1916 to 1930, but anti-liberal writers began to expound and defend the anti-liberal traditions of the country. After 1930 Argentine cultural nationalism entered a third stage. The anti-liberal variety was given impetus by governmental agencies and private groups which published literature justifying authoritarian government. Rojas denounced this chauvinistic and xenophobic type of nationalism but his efforts in checking its growth were unsuccessful. When anti-liberal nationalism emerged triumphant in the Revolution of 1943, Argentine cultural nationalism entered a fourth stage. The liberal type of nationalism, which had remained in the schools until this time, was replaced, and anti-liberal nationalism became official government policy. This type of nationalism lasted until 1950, when the cult of Perón took precedence over the others.
With regard to the salient characteristics of Argentine cultural nationalism, we find that all three of the major schools—the liberal, the anti-liberal, and the peronista—aspire to represent the true criollo and democratic nationalism of the country. Thus they share, at least outwardly, two characteristics. They are nativist, or criollo, each considering itself the true representative of that which is indigenous to Argentina; and they are democratic in theory since they espouse government in the name of the people. But more important than these similarities are their differences, for they emphasize and interpret the major themes of cultural nationalism differently. The liberal school emphasizes the “spirit of May” and adheres to the basic core of the liberal tradition. The anti-liberal school emphasizes the cult of the sword or the cult of Juan Manuel de Rosas and adheres to the anti-liberal tradition of the country, and the peronista school draws upon both of the others for its ideas but places supremacy on the cult of the leader Perón.
Of the three schools of cultural nationalism, however, the only one which has been fully developed is liberal nationalism. Only Ricardo Rojas and his followers can be said to have developed a complete type of cultural nationalism in Argentina.
For the most complete examination of Herder’s ideas in English see R. R. Ergang, Herder and the Foundations of German Nationalism (New York, 1931).
A good example of a book which contains some elements of cultural nationalism but which is not a complete form of cultural nationalism is Joaquín V. González, La tradición nacional, Obras completas de Joaquín V. González (Buenos Aires, 1936).
Emilio Bécher, Diálogo de las sombras y otras páginas de Emilio Bécher (Buenos Aires, 1938).
Ricardo Rojas, Cosmópolis (Paris, 1908).
Ricardo Rojas, La restauración nacionalista, informe sobre educación (Buenos Aires, 1909).
Ricardo Rojas, Blasón de plata (Buenos Aires, 1922).
Ricardo Rojas, La argentinidad, ensayo histórico sobre nuestra conciencia nacional en la gesta de la emancipación, 1810-1816, 2 ed. (Buenos Aires, 1922).
Although Rojas had published nothing on “cult of the gaucho” at this time, he contributed to the popularization of this theme in his course of Argentine literature at the University of Buenos Aires. Ricardo Rojas, “La literatura argentina,’’ Nosotros, X (junio, 1913), p. 381. However, Leopoldo Lugones played a more conspicuous role in its popularization at this time. In 1913 in a public lecture at the Teatro Odeón, Lugones called Martín Fierro the national epic. In 1916 he brought out a book on the subject El payador. Leopoldo Lugones, El payador (Buenos Aires, 1916). Rojas’ principal contribution to the theme of “the importance of the provinces in the life of the nation” was his El país de la selva (1906). In it he described his native province, Santiago del Estero, which he believed to be the most characteristically Argentine of all the provinces. Ricardo Rojas, El país de la selva (Buenos Aires, 1925).
Examples of anti-liberal statements in Rojas’ writings are found in La restauración nacionalista. In one he says if liberty of teaching endangers the stability of the state and the moral integrity of the republic then it should be curtailed; and “In the present state of our country, illiteracy which contains certain healthy instincts, is preferable to literacy which lacks a national sentiment.” Ricardo Rojas, La restauración nacionalista (Buenos Aires, 1909), pp. 171, 217.
Two examples of this are: Juan B. Ramos, La significación de Alemania en la guerra europea (Buenos Aires, 1915), and José Uriburu, La guerra actual, apuntes y enseñanzas (Buenos Aires, 1917).
The contents of this book appeared first as articles published in English between March, 1915, and June, 1916. Ramiro de Maeztu, La crisis del humanismo (Barcelona, 1919).
Manuel Gálvez, La tragedia de un hombre fuerte (Buenos Aires, 1922), and El espíritu de aristocracia y otros ensayos (Buenos Aires, 1924).
Carlos Ibarguren, La historia que he vivido (Buenos Aires, 1955).
Leopoldo Lugones, Acción: Las cuatros conferencias patrióticas del Coliseo (Buenos Aires, 1923). For other writings of Lugones during this period see: Raúl Pultera, Lugones: elementos cardinales destinados a determinar una biografía (Buenos Aires, 1956).
Carlos Ibarguren, Juan Manuel de Sosas: su vida, su tiempo, su drama (Buenos Aires, 1930).
Some other examples of literature during this period, 1916-1930, which contained elements of liberal cultural nationalism were: Arturo Capdevila, La dulce patria (Buenos Aires, 1917) ; Carlos Quintana, El carácter nacional (Buenos Aires, 1919) ; Juan Gregorio Beltrán, La argentinidad, sus orígenes y sus caracteres más salientes (Buenos Aires, 1919); Juan Agustín García, Sobre nuestra incultura, del pasado y del presente, a través del odio (Buenos Aires, 1922), and Cuadros y caracteres snobs escenas contemporáneas de la vida argentina (Buenos Aires, 1923); Nativa: Revista Mensual Ilustrada (Buenos Aires, 1926); Carlos Erro, Medida del criollismo (Buenos Aires, 1929).
Ricardo Rojas, La literatura argentina (Buenos Aires, 1917-22).
In Eurindia Rojas also said that the new art would be inspired by both European and American sources; that there was no room within the Argentine conscience for hostility to foreigners, and that he wished to avoid both gaucho barbarism and cosmopolitanism. Ricardo Rojas, Eurindia (Buenos Aires, 1924).
Ibarguren, La historia que he vivido.
Some of the more sophisticated books of the anti-liberal cultural literature in the period 1930-1943 are: Leopoldo Lugones, La grande argentina (Buenos Aires, 1930) ; Juan E. Carulla, Valor ético de la revolución del seis de septiembre (Buenos Aires, 1933) ; Baúl Scalabrini Ortiz, El hombre que está solo y espera (Buenos Aires, 1931); Ramón Doll, Policía intelectual, críticas (Buenos Aires, 1933); Saúl Taborda, La crisis del presente y el ideario argentino (Santa Fe, Arg., 1933); Manuel Gálvez, Este pueblo necesita (Buenos Aires, 1934); José Pérez Valiente de Moctezuma (Baron de Roch), Significación universal de los argentinos (Buenos Aires, 1934) ; Gustavo Adolfo Martínez Zuviría (Hugo Wast), Oro (Buenos Aires, 1935); Ramón Doll, Liberalismo en la literatura y la política (Buenos Aires, 1936); Ernesto Palacio, El espíritu y la letra (Buenos Aires, 1936) ; César D. Pico, Carta a Jacques Maritain sobre la colaboración de los católicos con los movimientos de tipo fascista (Buenos Aires, 1937) ; Ernesto Palacio, “La historia oficial y la historia,” Revista del Instituto Juan Manuel de Posas, I, 1 (enero, 1939) ; Ernesto Palacio, La enseñanza nacional (Buenos Aires, 1940); Pablo Emilio Pizarro, Afirmación gaucha; resurrección nacional (Buenos Aires, 1943); Gabriel Riesco, Nuestra misión histórica (Buenos Aires, 1941); César E. Pico, Hacia la hispanidad (Buenos Aires, 1943); Juan Emiliano Carulla, Genio de la Argentina (Buenos Aires, 1943).
Examples of the anti-liberal revisionist literature are: Ernesto Palacio, “La historia oficial y la historia,” Revista del Instituto Juan Manuel de Rosas, I, 1 (enero, 1939), and La historia falsificada (Buenos Aires, 1939); Justo Díaz de Vivar, “La reafirmaeión del espíritu nacional,” Revista del Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas Juan Manuel de Rosas (Buenos Aires, 1940) ; and Julio Irazusta, Vida política de Juan Manuel de Rosas, 2 vols. (Buenos Aires, 1941-43).
Ricardo Rojas, Radicalismo de mañana (Buenos Aires, 1933).
Alfredo Coviello, “Semblanza del príncipe de las letras argentinas,” Revista Iberoamericana (febrero, 1943) pp. 59, 60.
Ricardo Rojas, El santo de la espada: vida de San Martín (Buenos Aires, 1933).
Examples of writings with a liberal nationalist point of view which further developed the earlier themes of cultural nationalism are: Carlos Vega, Danzas y canciones argentinas (Buenos Aires, 1936) ; Ismael Moya, Romancero (Buenos Aires, 1941) ; and Alfredo Coviello, Una página de historia en la naciente filosofía argentina y otros ensayos críticos (Tucumán, 1942). Some intellectuals of a liberal persuasion lost interest in the old themes of cultural nationalism, and, disillusioned with the country’s failure to develop a liberal democratic system, they searched for the causes of the country’s failure by studying the Argentine national character. Among them were Ezequiel Martínez Estrada, Radiografía de la pampa (Buenos Aires, 1933), and La cabeza de Goliath: microscopía de Buenos Aires (Buenos Aires, 1940), Eduardo Mallea, Conocimiento y expresión de la Argentina (Buenos Aires, 1935), and Historia de una pasión argentina (Buenos Aires, 1937); and Carlos Erro, Tiempo lacerdo (Buenos Aires, 1939), and Meditación argentina (Santa Fe, Arg., 1940).
It is inaccurate to think that the anti-liberal nationalists, at least those who developed the cultural aspect, were necessarily anti-democratic. See the following: Leopoldo Lugones, La grande argentina (Buenos Aires, 1930) ; Manuel Gálvez, El espíritu de aristocracia y otros ensayos (Buenos Aires, 1924), Este pueblo necesita (Buenos Aires, 1934) ; and Carlos Ibarguren, La inquietud de esta hora (Buenos Aires, 1934).
The Guía quincenal de la actividad intelectual y artística argentina for the years 1946-1950, gives a good picture of the activities of this group during the early years of the Perón government.
Ricardo Rojas, El profeta de la pampa: vida de Sarmiento (Buenos Aires, 1945).
Antonio Pagés Larraya, “Ricardo Rojas, fundador de los estudios universitarios sobre literatura argentina,” Revista de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, III, 3 (julio-septiembre, 1958), pp. 347-367.
Author notes
The author is assistant professor of history, University of California, Los Angeles.
