To the Editor: May 21, 1991
Neill Macaulay’s review of Sandino: The Testimony of a Nicaraguan Patriot, which I translated and edited, is generally equitable and positive. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to respond to one unfair criticism. Near the end of his review, after pointing out two minor “missteps,” Macaulay turns to what he calls a more serious problem: the documents which I chose to delete from Sergio Ramírez’s two-volume edition upon which the English-language version was based. He singles out one item, a manifesto of November 15, 1931, which, if I may be petty, he mistakenly dates November 15, 1930.
My removal of about 74 documents from a total of more than 260 did not result from a desire to spare the reader unpleasant facts about Sandino and his soldiers, as Macaulay implies. Rather it was the result of requests from the publisher to reduce the size of the book to marketable proportions, and my own recognition of the need to eliminate much repetition and even outright duplication in order “to include as much of Sandino’s thought as possible within the limits of a single volume” (xx). Despite this effort the finished work contains 538 pages.
As I stated on page xix of the book, when editing the Ramírez collection I was convinced that my deletions did not eliminate anything vital for understanding Sandino and his times, and this applies to the manifesto that Macaulay mentions, in which Sandino sanctioned certain barbaric forms of execution carried out by his soldiers. The fact is that there are several references to such practices in the book, one of which is at least as strongly stated as the one in the document which I omitted. See the index. p. 507, “Army in Defense of the National Sovereignty of Nicaragua: cruel acts of.”
One more point. Since I undertook the huge task of translating Sandino’s writings mainly to call attention to repeated U. S. interventions in Nicaragua and the awful consequences of such adventures (to which, incidentally, the United States now seems to have become addicted), I do wish Macaulay had given at least some attention to Sandino’s arguments, opinions, and descriptions of a very tragic and unnecessary interventionist war.
Robert E. Conrad, Beaver, Pennsylvania
To the Editor: June 6, 1991
Professor Conrad’s selection of documents is very fine, but it would have been better if he had included that manifesto.
Neill Macaulay, Micanopy Historical Society
To the Editor: May 25, 1991
I am writing in response to the article of Thomas F. Glick entitled “Science and Independence in Latin America (with Special Reference to New Granada)” published in the May 1991 issue of HAHR. While I do not disagree with basic tenets of Professor Glick’s article, there is one obvious error.
On page 313 he states, “The leading spokesman for this point of view, Juan Antonio Alzate, asserted the need to be empirical and undogmatic with regard to taxonomy.” There is no such person in the annals of Mexican scientific history. The person whom he should have correctly cited is José Antonio Alzate y Ramírez. According to records in the parish church of Ozumba, his parents, Juan Felipe de Alzate and Josefa María Ramírez Cantillana, so named him. Moreover, Professor Glick failed to illustrate Alzate’s significance in Mexican scientific history. He was recognized in both Europe and the New World for his scientific accomplishments. He was elected by acclamation to the Royal Academy of Science in Paris and named to the Royal Botanical Garden in Madrid. Copies of his studies are still retained by the principal archives and libraries in both Spain and Mexico.
Because Professor Glick so thoroughly shows the influence of Humboldt in the development of science in Latin America, it would have been prudent for him to examine Alejandro de Humboldt. Ensayo político sobre el reino de la Nueva España, ed. Juan A. Ortega y Medina (1966). Humboldt cites Alzate’s accomplishments on pages 81, 97, 131, 156, 456, 602, 603, 604 as well as other pages. He should have also consulted Juan Hernández Luna, “José Antonio Alzate: estudio biográfico y selección,” in Biblioteca enciclopedia popular, 41 (1945).
As I stated at the beginning, I do not quarrel with the essence of Professor Glick's study. However, an examination of these sources would have precluded an error in an otherwise excellent article.
John S. Leiby, Flagstaff, Arizona
