Directed toward a tentative definition of Modernism and a more effective delineation of its chronological confines, The Concept of Modernism in Hispanic Criticism presents a panorama of the most important critical opinion in Hispanic letters concerning the poetic phase of Modernism in South America. Recognizing that an ideal discussion of Modernism will include Spanish and other European literatures, the author has taken the initial step toward that discussion. Its magnitude is implicit in his classification of critical opinion under “The Consensus,” “Modernism as Aestheticism,” and “The Epochal View.” The first section includes definitions of the term Modernism and what have been considered its origins and characteristics. “Modernism as Aestheticism” discusses whether aestheticism constitutes the entire movement and whether this characteristic can be combined with other qualities, Juan Marinello’s study being used as the basis for the aestheticist argument. “The Epochal View,” which treats Modernism as a general occidental movement, considers mainly the contrasting critical views of Federico de Onís, Pedro Salinas, and Guillermo Díaz-Plaja. Onís regards the generation of ’98 as a part of Modernism, while Salinas and Díaz-Plaja view the two movements as distinct directions shown by the effort to renew literature. The epochal interpretation offers solutions to several problems of Modernism—for example, the position of Martí and Nájera—but one cannot help suspecting that it may be such a wide interpretation as to cease to have any use in criticism. There is no space here to list even the more important studies pertinent to the subject by Onís, Juan Ramón Jiménez, Manuel Pedro González, Max Henriquez Ureña, Ricardo Gullón, and Ivan A. Schulman. Gullón suggests the dates for Modernism as 1890-1940, Schulman 1882-1932. Both cover a very long span of years and include a number of extremely disparate artists in Spain and Spanish America. Such criteria are indeed latitudinarian.
The essay is entirely in English, and the author has wisely translated quoted material rather than summarizing it. But the original Spanish of the less readily available quotations is included in the appendix. The extensive annotations, comprising half of the book, are actually in many eases a continuation of the text and provide further critical commentary and opinion, making this study a digest and source book. An outstanding merit of this compendium is that while indicating the present status of studies of Modernism it indicates necessary future studies, specific and general, and the direction which these studies may take. Davison has done his work carefully, and his volume is of value to all who are interested in Modernism in the Hispanic world.
