This is an important study on one of the most original essayists of Peru of the 1920s. After several years of researching pro-Mariátegui literature, the author produced this work, as valuable for what it contains as for what it omits. Based on his Ph.D. dissertation (UCLA, 1967), this version is part of the second cycle of the love-hate syndrome that Latin Americanists have experienced while dealing with Aprismo. The pro-APRA literature produced in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s has been followed by a series of works with an opposite bent.
In his attempt to portray an extraordinary man living in a turbulent time, the author places Mariátegui at the center of the intellectual life of Peru from 1926 to 1930. The book is composed of two parts. A brief “Preface” and “Introduction” precede Part One’s two chapters: “The Birth of the Modern Peruvian Nation, 1870–1919” and The Intellectual and the National Questions, 1870–1919.” “Part Two: Of Mariátegui’s Trial” contains the six remaining chapters. The first two of these cover his “Adolescence and Manhood” and his European experience, “Europe and the Rediscovery of Peru”—which for Mariátegui was in reality a “discovery” of his own country. The other chapters analyze his major contributions: Amauta, Siete ensayos, Defensa del marxismo, and “Peruanicemos al Perú.” An “Epilog,” three appendixes, a “Bibliographical Essay” and an “Index” complete the study.
The book is well organized and written in a clear style. It succeeds in clarifying Mariátegui’s conception of Marxism, his reluctance to obey Communist directives from abroad, and the controversy that ensued. Another contribution is his treatment of Mariátegui’s pro-Indian stand. He correctly dates its origin to December 1924. From that time on he became “a zealous indigenista,” although his writings never “harked back to a golden age to be retrieved” (p. 93). When Chavarria summarizes Mariátegui’s controversy with Luis Alberto Sánchez, however, he makes an unsubstantiated observation: “It is also possible that Sánchez was reacting out of some personal pique” (p. 96). His weakest parts are the sections on APRA, which he continues to treat without objectivity, to the point of contradicting himself (e.g., p. 103, lines 2–3 vs. ch. 5, n. 76; p. 82, lines 10–11 vs. p. 148, lines 7–9; ch. 2, n. 6 vs. Journal of Latin American Studies, 7 [1975], 165, n. 1). Was APRA in 1927 a paper organization” (ch. 6, n. 66)? Did a government security agent escort Mariátegui as far as Panama (p. 64)? At times the author gives the impression of holding the misconception that a way to enhance the image of Mariátegui is by deprecating Haya de la Torre’s.
Apart from his misconceptions lingering on from his dissertation, Chavarría has succeeded in giving us an important reference work on Mariátegui.
