Ecuadorian Literary War over Juan Montalvo

Author(s): Edmund Stephen Urbanski

Source: Hispania, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Mar., 1969), pp. 102-109
Published by: American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/337735 .
Accessed: 31/10/2014 16:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Hispania.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.223.86.31 on Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:17:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
102 HISPANIA

nosotros;y si nos libramos de tal angustia, los visada (New York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston,
verin seguramentelas pr6ximasgeneraciones...
iTantas cosas como podrian evitar los hombres
si dedicasena ello una buena voluntad!
Estas batallas entrevistas por Blasco--el piblica Espafiola (Paris, abril 1925), pp. 18-20;
Pacifico, la China, la India, quien sabe si
Egipto-ya se han dado o estin dindose.
Su visi6n, una vez mis, fue prof6tica.
Cierra el phrrafo la nota optimista de las
dos palabrasfinales, "buenavoluntad,"pero
sobre ellas cuelga, como nueva espada de
Damocles, todo el misterioso horror de la
inc6gnita de Oriente, saturadade angustia.
Pasado el centenario del nacimiento de
Vicente Blasco Ibaifiez,y ante la evidente
injusticia con que ha sido tratado,?podre-
mos negarle una revisi6n objetiva de su
obra, una reevaluaci6n de su novelistica
sin actitudes preconcebidas, que en con-
ciencia merece?
NOTAS
1Walter T. Pattison, RepresentativeSpanish
authors (New York: Oxford University Press,
1942 y 1963), II, pp. 338 y 384, respectivamente.
2El subrayado es nuestro. Angel del Rio,
Historia de la literatura espaiola, edici6n re-
1963), 11, 218-19.
sMadrid: A. Pueyo, 1928.
4Vicente Blasco Ibifiez, Lo que sera' la Re-
Chicago Tribune Magazine (May 21, 1967), p.
49.
5Azorin,"Valencia"en Obras completas(Ma-
drid: Aguilar) tomo vI, cap. XXXV, 95-96.
6Francisco de Cossio, Confesiones (Madrid:
Espasa-Calpe, S.A., 1959), XXXI, 257-60.
V6ase tambidn Martin Dominguez Barberai,El
tradicionalismo de un republicano (Sevilla: Edi-
ciones Montejurra, 1961), I, 184-196.
7Eugeniod'Ors, "Fin de Siglo y Novecientos"
en Arriba (Madrid: Nuimero almanaque de
1950). Citado en Emilio Gasc6 Contell, Genio y
figura de Vicente Blasco Ibdaiez (Madrid: Afro-
disio Aguado, 1957), pp. 210-11.
sAzorin, pp. 96-97.
9"-Los mejores narradores (y repite), 'na-
rradores,'de las letras universalesson Tolstoi y
Vicente Blasco Ibifiez. Ese viaje de Rafael Brull,
desde su escafio del Congreso hasta la 'casita
azul' de Alcira, donde le espera el amor de
Leonora,es un verdaderoprodigio. Y asi ocurre
con el Blasco de Arroz y tartana, de La barraca,
de Flor de Mayo . . ." Azorin, citado en E.
Gasc6 Contell, pp. 208-09.
lOFedericode Onis, en la introducci6n a La
batalla del Marne (Boston: D. C. Heath & Co.,
1920), pp. viii-ix.

ECUADORIAN LITERARY WAR OVER JUAN MONTALVO

EDMUND STEPHEN URBANSKI
Howard University
Gonzalo Humberto Mata has been l'en-
fant terrible of Ecuadorian literature for
about forty years. His poetry, novels, es-
says, biographic works and literary criti-
cism, because of their polemic character
and intensity of feeling, excite Ecuador
and other Spanish American countries
more than the books of other authors. This
is mainly due to Mata's quixotism and his
radical approach to literary criticism. Right
or wrong, Mata has always been known
for his intellectual integrity and refusal to
compromiseon issues which he believes to
be just and humane. His recent book
Zaldumbide y Montalvo (Cuenca, 1966),
with its extremely pungent comments on
these well-known Ecuadorian writers, pro-
voked a heated controversy all over
Ecuador.
This atmosphere, in which some tradi-
tional values of the Ecuadorianpast are in-
volved, may be comparedwith the political
tensions caused by the theocratic dictator-
ship of Garcia Moreno (1859-75). With
vehement polemics against the cruelty of
that regime, Juan Montalvo (1832-89), a
political pamphleteer, occasioned his own
rise to a literary glory which remained un-
disputed for over half a century. It was
Mata who, with another Ecuadorianwriter,
Gabriel Cevallos Garcia, and the Argen-
tine literary critic, Enrique Anderson Im-
bert, seriously challenged the value of
Montalvo's writings, accusing him of
vainglory and excessive imitation of Cer-
vantes. Montalvo apparently could not
resist verbosity and flamboyant rhetoric,
traits which have notably been character-
istic of some Ecuadorianwriters. Mata par-
ticularly noted the disparitybetween Mon-

This content downloaded from 128.223.86.31 on Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:17:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 FACT AND OPINION
talvo's ideological aims and his insatiable
yearning for fame. Gonzalo Zaldumbide
(1884-1966), a noted Ecuadorian author,
literary critic, and enthusiastic propagan-
dist for Montalvo's works in Ecuador and
abroad, was not spared in Mata's icono-
clastic campaign. Mata believes that Zal-
dumbide grossly exaggerated Montalvo's
literary stature and thus misrepresented
Ecuador'scultural values.
The most devastating attacks against
Mata came from the intelligentsia of Am-
bato where Montalvo was born. Its chief
spokesman was Pablo Balareza Moncayo,
director of the Casa de Montalvo, whose
"Protestaen Ambato por el libro de G. H.
Mata" was published in Quito's El Comer-
cio (October 3, 1966). The authorcensures
Mata's derogatory comments about Mon-
talvo, whose reputation he believes to be
"indiscutible,"and by the same token he
bitterly mentions that in "las tres illtimas
d&cadasse ha publicado mais de un libro
en contra de Montalvo, y hasta se premi6
con medalla de oro y pergamino de honor
a uno de los detractores."'Considering the
present literary controversyunpatriotic, he
is disgusted with the softness and rather
friendly spirit with which Mata's book was
received in Ecuador. He is even more un-
happy with a review on Mata's work pub-
lished in Ambato's El Heraldo (October
2, 1966), whose author, though rather
critical of the book, nevertheless, suggested
that Mata's already announced next book,
Apeo y deslinde de San Don Montalvo,
should receive Ambato's literary prize!
In the several clippings available to us
from the Quito and Guayaquil periodicals,
a rather unfriendly attitude towards Mata
is in evidence. Some of these polemical
articles were mostly concerned with the
defense of Montalvo as a political fighter
and because they lacked substance as liter-
ary criticism, they hardly refuted Mata's
unorthodox arguments.On the other hand,
more favorable comments appeared in the
press of Cuenca, with whose university
Mata has been connected for many years
and where he enjoys a good reputation.
Thus, Gonzalo James Gez's giving Mata's
Zaldumbide y Montalvo a positive review
in Cuenca's El Tiempo (August 11, 1966)
This content downloaded from 128.223.86.31 on Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:17:49 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
103
suggested a parallel between Montalvo's
famous reference to President Garcia Mo-
reno's death, "mi pluma lo mat6,"and what
Mata's essay in effect does: "mi libro lo
mat6." This literary controversysometimes
assumed unexpected, almost humorous
twists. Guayaquil's El Universo (August
7, 1966) reviewing Mata's book, inserted
pictures of the three protagonists of this
literary war with a clever caption: "Zal-
dumbide Mata Montalvo."
The background of the literary contro-
versy has its interest. Montalvo was a friend
of the poet Julio Zaldumbide (1833-87)
whom he once defended against the dic-
tator Garcia Moreno. The latter censured
the democraticideas expressed in Zaldum-
bide's pamphlet La Reptiblica.2 Montalvo's
defense, in Mata's opinion, was more or
less political propaganda, because both
writers were united in opposing the pre-
vailing tyranny. Julio's son, Gonzalo Zal-
dumbide, repaying this favor, later de-
fended his father's defender in a favorable
prologue to the Parisian edition of Mon-
talvo's El Cosmopolita(Paris: Edition Gar-
nier, 1927, vol. ii). Mata, revising certain
paragraphsof the Montalvo text dedicated
to Julio Zaldumbide, finds several gram-
matical errorswhich do not speak favorably
of Montalvo's literary style. Mata also cen-
sures Montalvo's unethical attitude and
poor taste in delving into his poet friend's
private affairs. Incidentally, in the above
mentioned paragraph,Montalvo in a men-
acing way tries to dissuade Julio Zaldum-
bide from his friendship with Juan Le6n
Mera (1832-94), author of the romantic,
indigenous novel Cumnandd(1871). Mon-
talvo and Mera, both natives of Ambato,
were not friends. Montalvo envied the
literary reputation enjoyed by Mera, not
only as a novelist and painter, but above
all as a critic of Ecuadorian poetry. It
should be understood that Mera's dedica-
tion to the social and literary problems of
Ecuador differed diametrically from Mon-
talvo's vehement interest in political affairs
and his only partial concern for purely
literarymatters.
Many Ecuadorian and foreign critics
seem to agree that Montalvo's reputation
rests on his polemic writings which ap-
104
pealed so much to the spirit of politically
excitable Ecuadorians. Even Mata admits
Montalvo's polemic power, saying that
"Montalvonecesit6 del clima garciano para
el ejercicio de su gran fuerza polemica; sin
Garcia Moreno no hubiera alcanzado su
famoseria abigarrada"(Defensa de mi Zal-
dumbide y Montalvo, Cuenca, 1966, p.
69). Owing to this spirit of political agita-
tion and partisan interplay, Montalvo re-
ceived financial aid for his publications
from liberal-minded politicians such as
General Eloy Alfaro and negotiated with
others such as General Ignacio de Veinti-
milla, who succeeded Garcia Moreno.
Veintimilla, once he understoodthat Mon-
talvo's politics were self-serving,exiled him
as had his predecessor. All this seems to
prove that Montalvo's revolutionary ide-
ology mixed quite easily with the political
opportunism of which Mata accuses him.
According to an encyclopedic study by
Alejandro Carri6n, Zaldumbide's essay on
Montalvo in his last book Pdginas de
Gonzalo Zaldumbide (Quito, 1960-61) is
the most important one.3 It appeared with
a preface by Miguel Sanchez Astudillo,
S.J., perpetual secretaryof the Ecuadorian
Academy of Language. This publication
is one of Mata's principal targets in his
revaluation of Montalvo's writings. Mata's
polemical-critical method in Zaldumbide
y Montalvo is unique. A great part of this
work is a monologue directed to Zaldum-
bide, deceased in 1966, whom in a friendly
way he calls "don Gonzalo," interjecting
bold questions also to Padre Sanchez with
whom he takes sharp issue. Zaldumbide
and Sanchez as Montalvo's literary apolo-
gists, are both part of Mata's iconoclastic
design to destroy Montalvo's image.
The main issue which Mata takes with
Gonzalo Zaldumbide is that the latter did
not make a rigid and detailed literary
critique of Montalvo's writings and yet
quite freely called him "gran escritor"and
"precursor."On the other hand, while ren-
dering a tribute to the famous pamphleteer
in a speech delivered in 1963, he appears
to have qualified his opinion: "Mi Mon-
talvo [. . .] a quien dediqu6 tributo de
panegirista, no de critico . . ." (Discurso,
1963, p. 19). Of course, none of this di-
This content downloaded from 128.223.86.31 on Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:17:49 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HISPANIA
minishes Zaldumbide's literary reputation
achieved with over twenty published works.
He wrote some novels, but his work con-
sists mainly of literary criticism on out-
standing European, Spanish American and
Ecuadorianauthors. Zaldumbide'spredilec-
tion for Montalvo was notorious, for he not
only collaboratedin editing his Obras com-
pletas in Paris (Edition Garnier) at the be-
ginning of this century, but also dedicated
many pages to him either separately or in
conjunction with other writers. Well-
known is his book Cuatro grandes cldsicos
americanos. (Buenos Aires, 1947; Madrid,
1951) in which he discusses Juan Mon-
talvo, Jose Enrique Rod6, Fray Gaspar de
Villarroel, and Juan Bautista de Aguirre.
Mata recognizes Zaldumbide as a great
writer in his own right, unquestionably
superior to Montalvo, but does not share
his opinion on the literary value and stylis-
tic greatnessof the latter. Even Zaldumbide
himself has some reservations in this re-
spect, though he does not spell it out. On
one occasion, Zaldumbide, referring to
Montalvo and Mera, says that "no se de-
tenian a sopesar si lo que van a decir vale
le pena [. . .] Como esos conversadoresde
oficio, para quienes no hay diferencia entre
un amigo y otro, con tal de que haya quien
les oiga y les d&cuerda" (P4iginasde Gon-
zalo Zaldumbide, p. 82).
It seems, however, that Montalvo'sdyna-
mism and rhetoric, which were his most
effective assets, exercised a magic power
over some Ecuadorian intellectuals, especi-
ally over Zaldumbide. Through his efforts
Montalvo became a literary figure known
outside of Ecuador; otherwise he might
have been forgotten as were many other
Ecuadorian writers, including Gonzalo
Zaldumbide'sfather, Julio, a distinguished
romantic poet-philosopher. Zaldumbide
(the son) published an essay on Montalvo
which ran four editions in four Spanish-
speaking countries. Inconsistent as he
might have been, Zaldumbide nevertheless
had some doubts about the greatness of
his compatriot, because he once confessed
that Montalvo was "acerbo polemista y
hombre injusto, "while on other occasions
pointed out the contradictorytraits of his
character. Zaldumbide, whatever the rea-
 FACT AND OPINION
sons, never presented Montalvo's whole
story. This was done in part by others, and
now with extraordinary frankness and
brutal rigidity by Mata, who based himself
not only on his research but also on Zal-
dumbide's various statements.
Mata in analyzing Montalvo's writings
and behavior calls him "charlatan" and
says: "Todo en Montalvo es morcilla de
aserrin, basto amasarde embuste elaborado
sin sublime artesania alguna. Trapaceria
de acomplejadoprovinciano que pugna por
crearse, como fuese, su nombre y famo-
seria: en gula inextirpable" (Zaldumbide
y Montalvo, p. 55). Mata is quite con-
vinced that Zaldumbide could not have
believed Montalvo was either a writer or a
stylist of stature. Mata reminds us of a
letter that Montalvo once wrote to Garcia
Moreno censuring his tyrannical govern-
ment. Montalvo's only motive was to gain
popularity, which indeed he achieved.
Similarly, Mata says: "Lo mismo que hizo
con Garcia Moreno, lo ejecut6 con Cer-
vantes: arrimarsea la sombra de un buen
arbol y, luego, desechando la sombrapropi-
cia, treparse a d1 para manotear desde su
copa: a que todos caigan en cuenta de ese
extrafio ser malogrando la natural com-
postura de las ramas"(Zaldumbide y Mon-
talvo, p. 56). Therefore, Mata not only
denies Montalvo's prose as possessing the
casticismo so generously bestowed upon
him by Zaldumbide, but even brands
Montalvo with the strong, critical adjective
"seudocervantista," a characterizationwhich
turned many Ecuadorian intellectuals
against Mata.
Mata comes to such a conclusion after a
careful screening of Montalvo's writings,
especially his El Cosmopolita, and com-
paring it with Cervantes' style. He states
that Montalvo was not a grammaticaltech-
nician, but simply an imitator of certain
archaicforms, and as such created a pseudo-
classical style which did not pass unnoticed
by other authors. Thus, the Colombian
literary critic Juan Bautista Perez y Soto
who read Montalvo's publications thor-
oughly was so shocked by their linguistic
incongruities and thematic inconsistency
that he published his critical remarksin a
study with the significant title La Curarina
This content downloaded from 128.223.86.31 on Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:17:49 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
105
o antid6to contra el montalvismo (Guaya-
quil, 1886).' Miguel Antonio Caro, an-
other Colombian writer, was not less
astonished that Montalvo, the renowned
"Cervantes americano," featured in his
pages a certain construction of the verb
ser with the particle que. (El Cosmo-
polita, Quito, 1894, p. 1894, p. 489).
Among Montalvo's other idiomatic peculi-
arities Mata indicates such expressions as:
"hacen dos dias,""hacen veinte afios,""suc-
cesiva," and "fietos"for nietos, etc., which
most likely would not entitle the pam-
phleteer from Ambato to a seat at the
Academy of Language! Even a pro-Mon-
talvo critic such as the EcuadorianAugusto
Arias, while praising his "flexibilidad de
la prosa en la que oraciones se marcan en
color o en mfisica," does not hesitate to
charaterize Montalvo's style as "un tanto
fatigoso por lo amplio y circular, por lo
sostenido y entrabado de sus tirminos que
ponen a prueba la sabiduria de la sintaxis;
la resistencia [. . .] de la concordancia,
etc." (Mundo Nuevo, Paris, Nr. 7, 1967,
p. 81).5 These linguistic and grammatical
irregularitieswere known to Montalvo'sfel-
low writers, some of whom Montalvo, pre-
sumably in self-defense, even insulted. Ac-
cording to Mata, such was the case with
Mera, Merchan, Julio Zaldumbide, and
others, who dared reveal to him these basic
defects.
As we have indicated, Montalvo's intel-
lectual tragedy was his insatiable ambition
and vaingloriousness, as well as his ina-
bility, in the last analysis, to take full ad-
vantage of the lexical richness of the Cas-
tilian language which he explored insuffici-
ently. Mata describes his lingustic manipu-
lation: "Montalvo, saqueando la mina del
lenguaje castellano, que e1 supuso clisico
o neoclasico, tom6 el oro de desecho, lo
plate6, di6lo como legal y, entonces, ya
pudo ampararse en su m6vil tendencioso
de lucir los artefactos de su prosa
gerundial, pululada de bastardias idiomai-
ticas para quienes sepan ver, pero de des-
lumbrancia falaz ante los caballeros de la
sacha aristocracia, etc." (Zaldumbide y
Montalvo, pp. 68-69). Deeply convinced
of his linguistic omnipotence, Montalvo,
according to Mata, ignored Cervantes' ex-
106
ample and censured the master'slinguistic
affectation while he himself created sen-
tences worthy of caricature.He even criti-
cized Lope de Vega, who, in Montalvo's
opinion "habia convertidose en tuno de
playa en sus comedias" (El Cosmopolita,
Edition Garnier, 1927, n,p. 273). This
patronizing attitude apparently prompted
Montalvo to write a book Capitulos que se
olvidaron a Cervantes (Besanz6n, 1895),
in which he mixed Hispanic linguistics
with essay-like meditations on folly as a
source of both adventures and Ecuadorian
politics! To show off his wisdom, Montalvo
frequently quoted ancient philosophers to
such an extent and with such familiarity
that he sometimes even forgot to use quo-
tation marks.
Mata's criticism of Montalvo's linguistic
artificialityis shared by other literarycritics
who voiced their views on the same topic
later, after the publication of his Zaldum-
bide y Montalvo. Mata's compatriot, Au-
gusto Arias, in his study "El Cosmopolita"
de Juan Montalvo (Paris, 1967) believes
that Montalvo, exposed to the Spanish
classics of the Siglo de Oro and later, and
attractedby the gracefulness of the French
style, ambitiously tried to establish his own
mode of writing. Arias characterizesas "ba-
rroco montalvino" the style in which most
of Montalvo's articles in El Cosmopolita
were written. This would confirm the ob-
vious that Montalvo did indeed affect a
baroque style, which, although in disuse
and even ridiculed two centuries before, he
possibly believed to be his own contribution
to renovating the language of Castile,
Montalvo was undoubtedly imbued with
admiration for the virility and expressive-
ness of the Castilian tongue, for which
reason he disdained "esa jerga americana."
Mata observes that Montalvo never
became as did Bello and Cuervo a
linguistic authority. The Ecuadorianpoliti-
cal pamphleteer penetrated the etymology
of few words; he never perceived the
functionalism of a living language. And
yet, he profusely mixed colloquial Ecua-
dorian expressions with chosen words of
Castilian vocabulary, creating thus a sui
generis linguistic cocktail. Also Montalvo's
knowledge of Spanish syntax was limited,
This content downloaded from 128.223.86.31 on Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:17:49 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HISPANIA
a fact which did not diminish his prolific
writing. He employed a flashy craftsman-
ship instead of cultivating his writing tech-
nique as an art. Strangelyenough, his repu-
tation went unchallenged by not a few
literary critics. Among contemporary ex-
perts not deceived by his pseudo-artistic
mode is Anderson Imbert who some time
ago called attention to the fact that Mon-
talvo "hacia literatura con la politica; y la
literatura la hacia con una lengua artifici-
osa" (Historia de la literaturahispanoamer-
icana, Mexico, 1954, p. 150).
Though Montalvo was not an orator,his
writings have definitely a pompous rhetori-
cal tendency, which, laced with flashy slo-
gans and verbosity, may be still mistaken
by some readersfor literary genius. In this
regard, Arias, who like Mata, scrutinized
Montalvo's writings closely, made the fol-
lowing observation: "Montalvo escribe con
mayor naturalidadcuando se deshace de la
mania oratoria que le anda por dentro,
[. . .] y asi los mais ficiles y directos
articulos de El Cosmopolita se parecen a
los podados de 6nfasis, precursoresdel en-
sayo y la cr6nica moderna, de las entregas
de El Espectador"(Mundo Nuevo, Paris,
1967, p. 84). According to Arias, El Cos-
mopolita has a singular place in Montalvo's
overall production, not only because it was
his first major intellectual effort, but also
because it contains principal topics which
he later expanded in other writings. Mata,
however, believes that the thematic content
of El Cosmopolita is rather pompous and
superficial. In view of this, one may there-
fore argue whether El Cosmopolita should
be classifiedat the same level as Montalvo's
more serious works such as Siete tratados
(1882), Geometria moral (1902), and El
Espectador (1886-88). It appears that El
Cosmopolita (1886-69), because of its un-
even value and preponderantly polemical
character, should rather be added to Mon-
talvo's pamphlet literature along with his
violent Catalinarias (1880), the corrosive
Mercurial eclesidstica (1884) and El
regenerador (1876).
The aim of Montalvo's political ideology
was liberty, the regeneration of which he
sought by various, mainly revolutionary
means. Surprisingly enough, he was con-
 FACTANDOPINION
servative in regardto the social structureof
Ecuador which was in contradiction to his
revolutionaryspirit. He was involved in the
turmoil of power struggle as a theoretician
rather than a practicing politictian. How-
ever, Montalvo sometimes considered him-
self "conductorde las masas"in too literal
sense. When Ecuador'sdictatorshipchanged
hands, Montalvo hoped to secure a public
office but he failed. This intensified his
rebellious attitude and his censure of all
despotic systems. An opportunist,Montalvo
did not always follow a determined political
group or caudillo. He had dealings, as we
have seen, with Generals Urbina and
Veintimilla of Ecuador and politicians of
other countries, at whose service he did
not hesitate to put his sharp revolutionary
pen or to whom he offered appropriate
manuscripts. In view of his behavior (sup-
ported by Mata's documentation), one may
doubt Montalvo's political idealism and
sincerity. The polemics in which Montalvo
was engaged were almost always accom-
anied by insults and slander to which
is pen was certainly no stranger, even if
he tried to cover them with an umbrella
of moral principles, whether in his Las
Catalinariasor Siete tratados.
It is perhaps owing to this background
that Cevallos Garcia, impatient with the
unjustified literary idolatry of Montalvo
in the past, said in his introduction to
Mata's Zaldumbidey Montalvo: "Ojali que
Mata nos d& margen a una gran pol6mica.
Es urgente decir muchas cosas que nos
comen por dentro. No necesitamos seguir
escuchando la misma salmodia de adula-
ciones y compromisos."He also expressed
his hope that Mata "con su obra levante el
polvo que inmoviliza nuestro pasado y que,
levantando el polvo, levante asimismo, la
polvareda."This is exactly what provoked
the great controversy over Montalvo in
Ecuador.
The increasing heat of this literary war
over Montalvo turned Ecuadorian public
opinion against Mata to such an extent
that he replied with the publication of a
new book Defensa de mi Zaldumbide y
Montalvo (Cuenca, 1966). Mata restates
his case in his customary polemic style,
taking strong issue over both Montalvo and
This content downloaded from 128.223.86.31 on Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:17:49 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
107
Zaldumbide with the dean of Ecuadorian
letters, Benjamin Carri6n. The unusual
feature of this book is that it contains an
essay by the latter, "G. h. Mata, el com-
prendedor apasionado."For unknown rea-
sons, on the cover of this publication which
bear the names of Carri6n and Mata, there
is a bright red star which divides the titles
of their respective essays. It is assumed that
the star plays a role of graphic diversion
rather than one of political significance,
since neither of these writers, as far as we
know, has a communist affiliation,although
each of them undoubtedly represents dif-
ferent socio-cultural ideology. Carri6n's
general opinion on Montalvo's literary-
political works is favorable, but neverthe-
less he concedes imperfections: "gran
escritor sin duda y hombre con muchas
debilidades, igualmente sin duda-es una
significaci6n de rebeldia." Benjamin Ca-
rri6n, while not subscribing to Mata's
critical evaluation of Montalvo, does not
deny him the right to criticize Montalvo.
In fact, Carri6n, himself makes a friendly
and impartial analysis of Mata's own
literary and intellectual achievements in
Ecuador. In view of the clash of opinions
over Montalvo, or in spite of it, this evalu-
ation is very significant since Mata became
at least as controversial in contemporary
Ecuador as Montalvo was in the last
quarter of the nineteenth century.
Carri6n describes Mata as
uno de los escritores con mayor cultura. Su
obra de poeta y novelista es vigorosa y potente.
Polemista en verso, en novela, en critica e historia
literaria, en biografia. La poldmica vocaci6n y
substancia de la literatura nacional, en sus prim-
eras etapas y hasta hoy, es la inspiraci6n temaitica
y la forma expresiva de casi toda su obra, abund-
ante e intensa, de G. h. Mata. En tal forma que,
hasta la manera de firmar, por aquello de la h
miniuscula de segundo de sus nombres de pila-
que es el nombre principal, por el cual se le
conoce-se nos antoja polkmica. Y polemica en
la cual, Mata como siempre se pone junto al
d6bil, contra el fuerte. Su obra de ensayista es
dura, implacable, pero siempre documentada, etc.
(G. h. Mata, el comprendedor apasionado,
Cuenca, 1966, passim)
Another literary trait of Mata which
Carri6n singles out is his courageous origi-
nality of language, full of neologisms and
saturated with indigenous Quechua words
and expressions. It should be explained
108
here that Indian folklore finds in Mata's
novels Sumag Allpa (1940) and Sal
(1963), probably the most honest and
dedicated protector in Ecuador. Strangely
enough, Mata, a Quito-born criollo, has
all his life been a champion of the
indigenous cause which he defends with
all his heart and uncompromising convic-
tion. In recognition of Mata's great hu-
manity, the Instituto Interamericano of
Texas elected him a Fellow (June 1,
1967).
Mata's prose style is simple, even crude,
but extremely expressive, and appeals to
the South American middle class readers.
Stylistically more elaborate and somewhat
more refined in their folkloric simplicity
are his volumes of poetry such as Llacta
yuyay (1963) and Machu Picchu (1965),
the latter considered by some critics to be
artisticallysuperiorto Pablo Neruda's poem
with similar title. Mata brings to his novels
on Indian subjects the same passion he
displays in his polemic literary criticism.
He always fights for justice.
Mata's message is not esoteric, but uni-
versal and noble as are his convictions
which have, as I have tried to indicate,
frequently antagonized Ecuador's literary
and political circles. Mata does not hesitate
to touch upon certain unpopular problems.
And yet, he is not without humor, as wit-
ness this suggestion to his readers: "Todos
los insultos, an6nimos, etc. deben ser
enviados al autor." Touches like this one
characterize Mata's truly intellectual inde-
pendence and make him a colorful figure
in Ecuadorianliterature.
The controversyover Montalvo has one
feature which does not speak too favorably
of Ecuadorianprofessionalliterarycriticism.
Mata's opponents have so far been unable
to deny his theses with substantial argu-
ments, but in the best tradition of political
polemics, have already tried to discredit
him with high sounding slogans and per-
sonal invective. Mata's obvious advantage
is his good documentation and logic, in-
destructible factors which leave him a vic-
tor in the battlefield. In many ways, Mata's
attackson literaryor political "sacredcows"
might be compared to H. L. Mencken,
who spared neither celebrities nor social
This content downloaded from 128.223.86.31 on Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:17:49 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HISPANIA
groups. And yet, like Mencken, the antag-
onistic Mata has also through his frankness
gained some enthusiastic followers in Ecua-
dor and abroad.
The Ecuadorian literary war over Mon-
talvo which erupted in 1966, continued
during the summer of 1967 to agitate
Mata's intellectual compatriots. It is diffi-
cult to forsee the controversy's outcome,
especially if it is going to extend to other
Spanish American countries, which except
for Argentina and Colombia, have so far
been passive witnesses. Mata's severe criti-
cism of Montalvo coincided with the
hundredth anniversaryof the original pub-
lication of El Cosmopolitain Quito (1866)
and divided Ecuadorian intellectuals into
two camps. Mata has publicly asked his
literary friends not to defend him, because
he hopes to win this controversy single-
handed, convinced that truth will win the
final victory. It seems that Mata is far from
dismayed by the war he has caused, be-
cause, as I mentioned earlier, he already
announced another book, Apeo y deslinde
de San Don Montalvo. At this writing he
is looking for a publisher for this third
work on Montalvo!Judging from the Ecua-
dorian newspapers which reached us re-
cently, Mata's popularity has enormously
increased, for he received an avalanche of
invitations to deliver public lectures in
variouscultural centers in Ecuador,Bolivia,
and Peru.
NOTES
1It is assumed that Pablo Balareza Moncayo
referred to Vida de Juan Montalvo by Oscar
Efren Reyes (Quito, 1943), which caused a
similar sensation and controversy as Mata's book
on Montalvo.
2This pamphlet was mentioned in Montalvo's
article "De la libertad de imprenta," published
in El Cosmopalita, No. 1 (Quito, 1894, p. 37;
also in Garnier edition, Paris, 1927, vol. I, p.
39).
sDiccionario de la literatura latinoamericana:
Ecuador, p. 163. (Uni6n Panamericana: Wash-
ington, D. C.), 1962.
4The word "curarina" derives from "curare,"
a poison used by the Ecuadorian jungle Indians,
the Jibaros, to kill animals, as well as being used
for treatment against snake bites. Perez y Soto's
intends it to mean an antidote against Montalvo's
venomous writings.
5Mundo Nuevo, Paris, in its January, 1967,
 FACT AND OPINION
issue, publishedAugustoArias'study El Cos- Montalvo,but did not mentionit at all. It con-
mopolitade Juan Montalvo,which was well tains someobservations which agreewith those
timed with the Ecuadorianliterarywar over of Mata.
STORY THIRTY-THREE OF "EL LIBRO DE PATRONIO"
Marginal Notes on Falconry
NICHOLSON B. ADAMS
University of Kentucky
The noble Prince, Don Juan Manuel,
was, like the uncle whom he greatly ad-
mired, Alfonso X, the product of a re-
markable Christian-Arabic-Judaicculture.
The combination is evident in his numer-
ous books, definitely including the fifty-one
stories of his masterpiece, El Conde
Lucanor.' It is not our purpose here to
comment on the familiar sources of the
tales or to discuss their literary merit, no
matter how great it was for its day. We are
well aware that Don Juan Manuel was a
conscious and conscientious artist. "Por
ende yo ... fiz este libro compuesto de las
mis apuestas palabras que yo pude. ...
He tells us elsewhere that he tries to write
simply, avoiding wordiness. He tells us that
he has sugar-coatedthe bitter pill of profit-
able doctrine so that it may be more
acceptable to the spiritual and moral livers
of his readers. The Prince's works are all
didactic, because he loves to teach. It is not
inaccurate to say that he was a noteworthy
fourteenth century textbook writer, and it
does not matter that his books were funda-
mentally addressed to a small and highly
aristocraticclass.
The Prince tells us that his storyconcern-
ing a falcon and an eagle (No. 33) is
based on a hunting experience of his father.
It i's entitled: De lo que contesgid a un
falcdn sacre del Infante Don Manuel con
un adguilae con una garia.* The story is
brief (33 lines). Prince Don Manuel was
hunting one day near Escalona (Don Juan
Manuel's birthplace), when he cast off his
saker falcon in pursuit of a heron. As the
saker made contact with its prey, an eagle
attacked it. The saker, afraid of the eagle,
left the heron in order to flee, and the
eagle flew off when she realized she could
*The authorsof this articleare membersof
the NorthAmericanFalconers'Association.
This content downloaded from 128.223.86.31 on Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:17:49 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
109
FRANK M. BOND
University of Illinois
not catch the saker. After this had hap-
pened several times, the saker turned on
the eagle, with his greateragility and speed,
striking her until she fled. When the saker
was about to kill his prey, the eagle at-
tacked again. Infuriated, the saker rose
and stooped (dove) so fast and furiously
on his enemy that he broke the eagle's
wing. Then, of course, the saker killed the
heron.
Count Lucanor had asked his counselor
whether, after he had settled other diffi-
culties, he should remain at leisure or
whether he should go and fight the Moors.
Patronio strongly advises that he should
have "guerra e contienda con los Moros,"
because it does not become a great lord to
take his ease and be "comiendoel pan de
balde." Further, "Et pues a los sefiores vos
es bueno e aprovechosoaber algund mester,
Viertoes que de los mesteres, non podedes
aber ninguno tan bueno e tan honrado e
tan a pro del alma e del cuerpo e tan sin
dafio como la guerra de los Moros." The
chronicles tell us that Don Juan Manuel
had followed his own prescription in this
regard, even though his actions in other
regards at times by no means exemplified
the lofty moral ideals which he tried to
inculcate in others. In writing this story,
it is evident that the Prince was in a par-
ticularly humble mood, because he has
Patronio refer three times to Count Lu-
canor's many sins. Had Don Juan Manuel
atoned for his errors by fighting God's
enemies on Spanish soil? The distich
moraleja is, as in many cases, as general as
it is prosaic:
Si Dios te guisare de aber seguranqa,
puiia de ganar la conplida bien andania.2
Thirty-five years ago Alexander Haggerty
Krappe3endeavoredto find a literarysource
for Story 33. He cites a story from an
Italian collection dated around 1390, later