This book is largely concerned with the progress of Spanish philosophy from Vitoria to Jovellanos, ending with a study of the May Revolution in Argentina in relation to that philosophy. The greatest emphasis in terms of space allotted is on the philosophers Vitoria, Suárez, and Solórzano y Pereyra, who require a third of the book. The other philosophers treated in the development of the book include San Alberto, Funes, Muriel, Viscardo, Jovellanos, and Cañete, who occupy the second third of the book. The final third consists of the twenty-odd pages used for introductory purposes and the fifty concluding pages expressing Halperín Donghi’s ideas on the May Revolution.
Early in the book the author stated his agreement with the ideas of Ricardo Levene and Manuel Giménez Fernández, who saw the revolution of the 19th century in Spanish America as descending from the old Spanish rebellions. The author repeatedly emphasized that, contrary to the beliefs of the men of 1837, there was no abrupt change in the revolutionary period of the early 19th century. Instead, the revolution has still not been realized. Historical continuity is the standard raised high, and under this standard the philosophers Vitoria and Suárez have contributed more to the present in Spanish America than Rousseau and his contemporaries. The Spanish influence has been emphasized in the place of the old emphasis of new enlightened changes evolving before, during, and after the revolutionary period.
The author’s purpose is to discover the historical continuity between Spanish traditional thought and the Argentine revolution. Good organization and clear, precise writing skill are essential to the establishment of historical continuity over such a long period as Halperín Donghi’s attempt covers. It is this ability that the author lacks. His organization is too loose and his sentences are too involved. The book’s interpretive nature will render it controversial in the future when the study of the Spanish philosophical ideas and their fate during the revolutions for independence in Latin America is further developed. On the credit side, the author often produces a penetrating light on his subject, making the book a necessary addition to the specialist’s reading list. On the other hand, the book should be avoided by the general reader. Whether or not the historian of the future agrees with Halperín Donghi’s ideas, he will most readily agree that this book has begun the filling of a much neglected gap in the history of Latin America.
