Naturalism in the Works of Federico Gamboa
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Naturalism in the works of Federico Gamboa Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Theobald, John Orr, 1907- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 28/09/2021 09:02:25 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/553213 Naturalism in the Works of Federico Gamboa John Orr Theobald M • ■ ' Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences, of the University of Arizona v V ! • • x . : A . H c* 1 A 19 5 3 Approved: *7 Date f £ ^ 9 7 9 / 7 933 73 Table of Contents I. Definitions. II. Short History of Naturalism. III. Life and "orks of Federico Gamboa. IV. Naturalism in the Novels of Federico Gamboa. V. Conclusion. Appendices: A. Personal Letter from Federico Gamboa, B. Biblos. C. Por El Mis mo Autor, D. GuestIonario. Notes. Bibliography. 90843 3 . ...... .... : CHAPTER I . ; Definitions The search for truth has manifested itself In margr ways in the- history of mankind. It is the motivating ele ment in the greatest branches of knowledge, religion, sci ence, art, economics, and literature. - There was a group of thinkers in.the field of liter ature called "naturalists". Largely influenced by the primary advances cf science, they sought to set forth in literature the truths of life, using the "scientific me-,, thod" as their mode of procedure. The "scientific method" is based on experimentation and observation. The method is one of strict analysis, and precludes any idealization. Theoretically, the naturalist must depict life just as it is, coldly and impersonally, arriving at his conclusions by the scientific method. Despite the well defined theo ries of their school, and the zeal with which the natural ists defended these theories, none of the authors of the. school have complied perfectly with its regulations. Diametrically opposed to .naturalism, which is an exaggerated form of realism, is romanticism. In romanti cism synthesis, idealization, and free use of imagination are fundamentals. The case of romanticism against realism is ageless, for the ideal against the material and practical / / • 4 is an inherent trait of human nature. i ' . - ......... The field of study,is so vast and the divergences.of opinions of the acknowledged scholars so great, that to categorize each literary work as either romantic or realis tic, without qualifications, would be hazardous* If the work were one of great:artistic merit, those with the romantic point of view would choose to interpret its sa lient points as romantic, just as the, realists or natural ists would, elect the author*s ideas as coincident with their own# Since no two men look alike, perhaps no two think alike. The radicals of today are the conservatives of tomorrow; the great naturalists from their graves are frowning upon the cubists,- the superrealists, the dadaists, the unaniraists# ■ .Therefore, it will be unquestionably more advantageous to quote these authorities in an unccntroversial spirit, rejecting or applying their contentions as we see,fit. The true distinction between romanticism and realism lies really in the novelist’s attitude of mind toward his materials. Actually there can not be such a thing as a romantic or realistic;subject. The very same sub jeot can be both romantically and realistically treated. The dls- tinotion therefore must;be one of method in setting forth this subject matter. The realist is concerned with and refers to the achievement of scientific discovery, while the romanticist busies himself with problems of artistic expression. In the light-of philosophy, the distinction 5 can be successfully made In the following statement * "In setting forth his view of life, the realist fol lows the inductive method of presentment, and the romantic follows the deductive Expanding this statement, our critic continues: "The realist first leads us through a series of Im agined facts as similar as possible to the details of actual life which he has studied, in order to arrive at the general conception. His method is leading us from the particular to the general. The romantic is concerned only with convey ing his general idea by giving it specific illustrative embodiment. He feels no obligation to make the imagined facts of his story resemble the actual details of life. The realist must have eyes and ears, though he need not have a soul.. The realist’s eyes and ears must not fail him, for then his readers will disbelieve him, and a story disbelieved is no story at all. He must never go beyond his own experience, he is confined to his own place and time, and the mere fact that he goes out of place and time will tend to produce skepticism in the reader. The range of romance is far wider than that of realism. If the romantic be certain of his truth and of his ability to convince, he need not support his truth by accumulation of evidence. It is said that a picture differs from a photograph mainly in its artistic repression of the insignificant; it exhibits life more truly because it focuses attention 6 on essentials* The realist who values facts for their own sake, instead of the.truths which under-lie them, becomes a naturalist, and the naturalist makes photographs of 1 i f e * , ■ . - , -" , The paragraphs quoted above are by Mr. Clayton Hamil ton, and they offer a framework for the consideration of r the two schools. ■ ... : Martino states that his definition will permit of useful antitheses: ,, . ; , , *!...romanticism...is a certain state of mind, melan cholic and imaginative, rather proud and revolting, the other, a true fever to show man and nature in that which 3 they are the. most shameful.n , William Dean Howells carries the evolution of realism into naturalism to this length: "When realism becomes false to itself, when it heaps up facts merely, and maps life, instead of picturing it, realism will perish too."4 ; A consideration of more of Mr. Howell’s critique brings us to this: "Armando Palaoio Valdes, in his preface to La Hermana San Sulplolo. says this: ’French naturalism represents only ' a moment and an insignificant part of, life...no one can j arise from the perusal of a naturalistic book without a vivid desire,..and a purpose more or less vague, of help ing to better the lot and morally elevate the abject beings who figure in It.*"5 "An insignificant part of life," 7 says Valdes, while Emile Zola thought and sought to embrace humanity In Its entirety as his subject! Mr, Howalls, how- ever, contends" that art Is not concerned with the preaching of morality; art rests on that which Is beautiful, and for that reason tends to be moral*6 This would exclude every thing from the realms of art that was not beautiful* Again there are as many thoughts as there are men, for Gamboa says: - ' ' •• ^ :.. - ■ . /. "To tengo para ml, que el arte no es moral ni inmoral; debe ser arte, y cobk? tal, purlfiear lo Impuroj que sin aquelj se quedarla de Impure para siempre*"^ ' Since Mr* Clayton Hemllton says that there Is no such thing as a romantic or realistic subject* a true artist could safely treat a "shameful" subject, knowing that his art would chasten It* Valdes, with naturalism still in mind, claims that the greatest cause of the decadence of contemporary literature 0 is the "vice of effect!sm"* This may apply to those with mercenary tendencies in the field of literature, bit not to Gamboa: ' ■ • - ; . ■. -5 ,• , "..* no voy a oerrar ice museos ni intentar autos de fe con las obras literal!as, para evltar rubores de nines oasaderss, miedos de letrades asustadizos, o de viojos 11- 9 bidinosos e impotentea," ^ A. discussion of naturalism zmst inevitably lead to the consideration of the most famous exponent of the school, Emile Zola, A perusal of. his life reveals to us that he was 8 a staunch romanticist in his youth. At this point of.de parture from romanticism, which is the beginning of his successful literaiy career, h® caught the invading spirit of investigation and experimentation* He modeled his nov els after the scientific processes of Claude Bernard, and became the principal theorist of naturalism. He found some sympathizers and untold numbers of enemies of hie school. This was to his liking. He thrived on the abuse and the invective of his enemies;the saw his works going into hundreds of editions, hundreds of thousands of volumes. His espousal of the cense of naturalism brought him power, . wealth, glory and fame. Why, then, abandon it, even though in his later years its adherents were dwindling, he himself experience!ng the.reaction to naturalism? Zola*s.private and public statements sometimes diverge widely. He once said to his intimates, Flaubert,Edmond de Gonoourt, Baudot, and Turgeniev: . ; . "And by Jove, I say the devil with naturalism, like you. Yet I shall repeat those ideas and go on repeating them, be cause new things must be baptized before the:public, so that they may think them new,"*0 ■' :■■■■ ; . Zola, "fought thru the long years for his doctrines and his school, while knowing the vanity, the vulnerability of them; •thus resembling,» as Ceard observes, •one of those apostles of Renan1® books, who die for a faith of whose il lusory character they have long been undeceived,•" ** It may be safely stated that Zola was not a perfect - 9 - / naturallot.