The editors deserve commendation for this important addition to their series, bringing more clearly to the attention of scholars the contributions to political thought of two great Uruguayan literary figures. Their apparent purpose in presenting Rodó and Zorilla de San Martín together is to show that however much they may differ as writers in the belles-lettres sense, they are both traditionalist and Hispanist, broadly speaking, in their political thought. It would be unjust, however, to speak of anything more than an apparent intent, because the editors are noncommittal in their introductory comments.

Some readers whose knowledge of Rodó is limited largely to Ariel may be surprised to discover him admitting his freethinking even while protesting removal of the crucifixes from the halls of learning Some may be more surprised to find that Zorilla de San Martín, romantic poet-author of Taboré, writes competently on questions of international law and also defends eloquently the encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891) which initiated the modern Christian Democratic movement. His conferencia of June 20, 1902, in Montevideo (pp. 253-273), expounding the principles of Leo XIII’s encyclical, is an interesting illustration of how Christian socialism emerged among intellectuals who were otherwise traditionalist, although the editors may not have intended this. His comments on the Roosevelt Corollary and the Drago and Calvo Doctrines, apropos of the Pan American Conference in Mexico City (1901), are worthy of special note.

The editors are performing a useful function in bringing together a wide range of texts for the student of Hispanic and Hispanic American thought, making conveniently available works otherwise somewhat difficult of access. If the collection as a whole gives more attention to traditionalists’ thought than has been customary, this is an interesting and overdue restoration of balance. But this reviewer must repeat some of his critical comments on previous volumes. Why are the editors so sparing of critical and analytical comment? Why do they not give more complete bibliographical data as to the place, date, and publisher of each selection? It seems a pity that so fine and useful a series should be marred by lack of this critical apparatus.