Required Reading: The Canon in Spanish and Spanish American Literature Author(s): Joan L. Brown and Crista Johnson Source: Hispania, Vol. 81, No. 1 (Mar., 1998), pp. 1-19 Published by: American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/345448 Accessed: 12/01/2009 15:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatsp.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hispania.
http://www.jstor.org Required Reading: The Canon in Spanish and Spanish American Literature
Joan L. Brown CristaJohnson Universityof Delaware
Abstract: The requiredgraduate reading lists of 56 leading Ph.D.-grantingSpanish faculties in the United Stateswere analyzedto characterizethe currentcanon for Spanishand SpanishAmerican literature. The da- tabaseconsisted of 14,686items. Littleconsensus was foundregarding authors, and even less for specificworks of literature.Only two authorsand two works from Spainachieved 100 percent representationon the lists. Thirty-nineauthors (one female) and 22 male-authoredworks from Spain,and 24 authors (two female) and ten male-authoredworks fromSpanish America were presenton 75 percentor more of the lists. At the other end of the spectrum,nearly 1,000 different titles appearedjust once in the database,demonstrating presence on only a single readinglist. The findingsshow little agreementabout what constitutesliterary value in this field. This has importantimplications for graduateeducation.
Key Words: canon, Spanishliterature, Spanish American literature, literary history, women writers,gradu- ate readinglists, graduateeducation
Introduction Ph.D.-granting Spanish faculties in this country supplied the data on which this The issue of literary canons has been descriptionof our literarycanon is based. central to both academicand populardis- Our choice of programs was founded on course in this countryin the last decade of published rankings of U.S. graduate the twentiethcentury (Gates). Although the schools, includingthe 40 highest-ratedpro- field of Hispanicstudies has not been insu- grams listed by Gourmanand 63 Spanish lated from this debate, there has been no graduate programs listed in Peterson's formal attempt to describe the Hispanic Guide. Every region of the United States canon. We previously looked at a single was represented. Twenty-fivelists came genre in our most recent historicalperiod, frominstitutions in the northeast,nine from the contemporary novel (Brown and the midwest, five from the Pacific coast, Johnson). Our findings indicated that for fourfrom the RockyMountain region, eight the post-1936novel canon there is no una- from the south Atlanticarea and five from nimity and very little agreement. This ar- south centralstates. Listswere acquiredby ticle reports the findings of a study de- means of letters to departmentchairs, with signed to describe our current canon for follow-uptelephone calls when necessary. Hispanic literatures in the United States Wheneverpossible, graduatereading lists across all eras andgenres. The overarching at the Ph.D. level were selected fromthose question that we sought to answer was: received,the rationalebeing that a reading does consensus indeed exist for most eras list for the Ph.D. represents the broadest and genres, and, if so, what is our shared possible compendiumof required works. literarycanon at this time? Combined M.A./Ph.D. lists were used when available.If an institutionhad inde- Methods pendentM.A. and Ph.D. readinglists, these two lists were merged; duplicate entries The requiredgraduate reading lists of 56 were counted only once for that school. 2 HISPANIA 81 MARCH 1998 Readinglists at the M.A. level were used tainedin (andare likely to representstudent when no other optionwas offered.The 56 familiaritywith) the collectionArticulos de lists that comprise this study include ten costumbres.Consolidation was undertaken Ph.D. or equivalentlists, six combinedlists, onlyfor authorswho alreadyhad significant ten merged M.A./Ph.D. lists, and 30 M.A. representationon the reading lists, which lists. we determinedto be presence on one-quar- A databaseof the literatureportions of ter of the lists. Its purpose was to reveal these readinglists was developedand com- canonicalworks whose status could be ob- piled on a University of Delaware main- scuredby referencesto individualchapters framecomputer, with the assistance of Dr. or stories, which the computercounted as LawrenceHotchkiss, Lead Consultant/Ana- distinctworks. lyst of the Computingand Network Services Listingsof a single work under multiple Departmentat the Universityof Delaware. titles (a proclivityof some authorssuch as For each institution,we entered the infor- Sender,but also a reflectionof alternateor mationon the readinglist. Listingsreceived abbreviatedtitles) were consolidatedwhen commonlyincluded the authorand title of they were noted,to count as one entrywith each work.We providedthe date of publi- the initial date of publication.Erroneous cationof each work as well as the national- titles, inaccurategenre classifications,and ity and gender of each author.Nationality misspellings were corrected when found. was determined according to country of Some works and authors could not be birth except when placementon a reading identifiedor classified, as they did not ap- list conflicted with that criterion (e.g., pear in standardreference works or in any Cortes);we maintainedthe integrityof each bibliographicallisting availableto us. We school's classification regardless of the were, therefore, forced to exclude these author'sbirthplace. For poets, date of birth items, which totaled 82 entries. Since no also was supplied.Thirty years were added single unidentifiable work appeared on to the date of birthin orderto situatepoets more than one readinglist, the elimination in their appropriatecenturies, since this of these mysteryitems had no effect on our would be the age by which they could rea- calculationsof canonicity. sonably be expected to publish. For all The analysisof literarygenres by centu- other authors, dates of publicationdeter- ries covered the years from 1100 to 1991. minedthe centuryplacement. We classified Ourclosing date representsthe last date of works into six genre categories, introduc- revision for the reading lists received and ing greaterspecificity to the commonhead- thereforeis the last possible date of publi- ing of "Prose" as a single entity. These cation for an included work. This purely genre divisionswere: novel, poetry, theatre, historical division allows a dispassionate short fiction, and essay, with the sixth cat- look at literary evolution, free from the egory of "other"reserved for those items influence of external frames of reference that could not be labeled under these divi- containedin divisionssuch as "Generation sions (e.g., films). of '98"or even "GoldenAge." Withineach In order to ascertain commonalities century, literaturefrom Spain was subdi- amongvarious individual listings of essays vided into novel, poetry, theatre, short and short fiction, some individualentries fiction,essay, and "other."Literature from were combinedunder the title of the collec- SpanishAmerica was subdividedthe same tion in which they appeared.This enabled way for the 55 institutionsthat had Spanish differentselections from a single book to Americanliterature on their reading lists; registeras repeatedreferences to the same one institutionhad none. The five Portu- volume. For example, the presence of guese-languagereading lists that were re- Larra's "Vuelva Ud. manana" on one ceived were not included in the present institution'slist was tantamountto a listing study. of "Eneste pals"on another;both are con- We sought the answerto a fundamental THE CANON IN SPANISH AND SPANISH AMERICAN LITERATURE3 question: which works and authors were containingall the lists totalled14,686 items. represented,and how oftendid they appear A totalof 780 authorsappeared on the lists, on the reading lists? For all genres except includingone "Anonymous"from Spain and poetry,we analyzedthe readinglists to see one "Anonymous"from SpanishArmerica. how many titles and how many authors Countriesrepresented, in alphabeticalor- were present on each list. We includedany der, were Argentina,Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, combination of works but counted each Colombia,Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ec- author only once per institution.We then uador,El Salvador,Guatemala, Honduras, determinedthe proportionalrepresentation Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, of every work and authorcited. For poetry Peru,Puerto Rico, Spain, the UnitedStates, we recordedthe author'spresence on each Uruguay,and Venezuela. Includingdupli- list, again allowing any combination of cate titles at differentinstitutions, the read- works.This enabled us to achieve an accu- ing lists featured 3,480 entries in the cat- rate count on which to base calculationsof egory of novel, 2,309 drama entries, 716 proportionalrepresentation. We could not short fiction items, 1,685 nonfictionitems determineproportional representation from and six entries in the category of "other." titles of poetic works because an accurate The countfor poetry, with individual poems count could not be obtained:individual po- weightedequally with full volumes of poetry ems, though comprising a much smaller andincluding duplicate titles, totalled 6,490. share of the poet'swork, would be counted For the novel, the minimumnumber on the same as a single volume of poetry.We a readinglist was 14, andthe maximumwas did not relate each poem to the first collec- 171;the mean with standarddeviation for tion in which it appeared,because to do so all 56 schools was 62 ?34 (1 S.D.). Theatre would introduce inaccuracies, given the entries rangedfrom a low of five plays to a wide use of anthologies.We also looked at high of 107;the meanwas 41 ?26. For short the distributionof writers and their works fiction,the minimumrequired was one, and by gender. In analyzingthis data,percent- the maximumwas 35;the mean was 13 ?8. ages were calculatedto fourdecimal places Nonfictionranged from two entries to 152. but expressedto the nearestwhole number. The mean was 30 ? 24. In the category "other,"the numberof entriesranged from Results one to five, with a mean of 3 ?3. Forpoetry, the lowestnumber of allentries (againwith- One hundredpercent of the 74 Spanish out distinguishingindividual poems from faculties that were asked to participatere- volumes of poetry)was 14, and the highest plied.Eighteen of them, however,could not number of entries was 656; the mean was be includedin this study.Ten did not actu- 116 ? 110. ally offerthe Ph.D. Three did not use read- Onlytwo works and two authors (allow- ing lists, and three used reading lists that ing for a combinationof works)were on 100 were not generated by facultybut by indi- percent of the graduate reading lists. vidualgraduate students. We includedone Lazarillode Tormes(1554) and Don Quilote formulationof requiredworks of literature de la Mancha(1605) were the books (Table that repudiatedthe title of "ReadingList." 3). The two authors were Miguel de Two model lists of recommendedreadings Cervantesand Benito Perez Galdos (Table for Ph.D.candidates to use in devisingtheir 1). Although the author "Anonymous" own lists were not includedin the present achieved 100 percent representationin ev- study of readings that are explicitly re- ery genre except theatre,we excludedthis quiredto fulfilldegree requirements. authorfrom our reportfor the obviousrea- The numberof all entriesfor the reading son that he or she was not a single entity. lists rangedwidely. The shortestlist (atthe The findings are presented in Tables 1-4. M.A. level) contained 44 items, and the Absence of a century or genre from these longest (a Ph.D.list) had 988. Ourdatabase tables indicatesthat no work in that period 4 HISPANIA 81 MARCH 1998 or of that type reached 50 percentpenetra- works of poetry,two works of shortfiction, tion of the reading lists; for poetry,works and one work of nonfiction(Figure 2). needed to be cited in an identicalmanner For Spanish America, the 75 percent on this percentageof lists. canon also was much greater than that of Expandingthe requirementfor canoni- the more restrictive95 percent definition. cal statusslightly, to encompassauthors on This calculation yielded eight additional 95 percent or more of the lists, yielded an novelists, six more poets, one more author enlargedcanon. Fernandode Rojas,Pedro of short fiction,and four of nonfiction,for a Calderonde la Barca, Lope de Vega, and total of 24 SpanishAmerican authors on 75 CamiloJose Cela from Spain, along with percentor morelists (Figure3). Therewere RubenDario and PabloNeruda of Hispanic ten canonicalHispanic American works by America, all figured on 98 percent of the this measure. As with Spanish literature, readinglists. Closely followingwere Tirso this was abouthalf the numberof additional de Molina from Spain and Spanish authors included (counting references to America's GabrielGarcia Marquez on 96 multipleworks). A total of six novels, one percentof the lists. Featuredon 95 percent work of short fiction, one work of poetry, were JuanRuiz, Federico Garcia Lorca and and two of nonfiction were canonical ac- Miguelde Unamunofrom Spain, and Cesar cordingto this standard(Figure 4). Vallejo and Jorge Luis Borges from His- If a trulybroad definition of canonicalis panic America.Works with 95 percent or adopted-one by which a work or author greaterrepresentation were, in additionto need only appearon 50 percent or more of the two alreadynoted: the Poemade mio Cid the reading lists in this study-then our (1100) on 98 percent, Rojas'La Celestina canon encompasses much largernumbers (1502), Tirso's El Burlador de Sevilla of works and authors. For Spain, when (1630), and Calderon's La vida es sueno these new entries were added to existing (1635), on 96 percent;and Ruiz'sLibro de totals, the yield was 21 novelists, 25 poets, buen amor (1283) on 95 percent. No Span- 16 dramatists,three authorsof shortfiction ish Americanwork was present on 95 per- and seven authorsof nonfiction,for a grand cent or more of the readinglists. total of 72 authors in all categories. This By stretching the definitionof "canoni- numbershrunk to 63 when multiplegenre cal"to 75 percent,the canon increasedfur- listings of the same writerwere removed. ther. Now added from Spainwere nine ad- In additionto those appearingearlier, these ditionalauthors of novels, 14 more poets, now includedanother entry for Lope (as a six added dramatists,two authorsof short poet as well as a dramatist),and also for fiction, and two authors of nonfiction. A Unamunoand Azorin (both as authors of numberof authorsachieved 75 percent or nonfiction as well as novelists). Quevedo greater representationin multiplegenres earned a third entry (as an authorof short independently:Cervantes as a novelistand fiction)and Cervantesa fourth(as a drama- authorof short fiction,Quevedo as a novel- tist). Three of the authors were women: ist andpoet, GarciaLorca as a poet and dra- Emilia Pardo Bazan on 77 percent, Santa matist, and Valle-Inclanas a novelist and Teresaon 73 percent,and Rosalha de Castro dramatist.With duplicates removed, the 75 on 52 percentof the readinglists. In terms percent canon totalled 39 (Figure 1). Ca- of works,there were 55, one of themfemale- nonicalSpanish works also were expanded authored.Pardo Bazan's 1886 Los pazos de by this measure,although by less thanhalf Ulloawas on 71 percent of the lists. the numberof additionalauthors. Five nov- Ourcanon of SpanishAmerican authors els were added, plus two more works of was enrichedby openingthe canon'sgates poetry,five more plays,two works of short at 50 percent representation.A combined fictionand one addedwork of nonfiction,for total of 17 novelists, 18 poets, four drama- a combined total of 22 canonicalworks of tists, five authors of short fiction, and 12 literature:eight dramas,seven novels, four authorsof nonfictionwere canonicalby this THE CANON IN SPANISH AND SPANISH AMERICAN LITERATURE5 measure, adding up to 56, reduced to 49 percent of the readinglists (Figure4). when duplicateentries for the same authors At the opposite end of the canon spec- were removed. These included Borges, trum, our analysis turned up many single Cortaizar,Rulfo, Marti, and Pazin twogenre entries for both works and authors. The categories (Borges as an author of short countof titlesthat appeared only once in our fiction and a poet, Cortazarand Rulfo as database of 56 reading lists was 966. The novelists and authors of short fiction, and numberof authorsappearing once onlywas Paz and Marti as poets and authors of 229. nonfiction), as well as Sor Juana in three categories (as a poet, dramatist,and author Discussion of nonfiction). She and Gabriela Mistral were the onlytwo womenincluded. Twenty- Our goal in the present study was to nine works of literaturewere canonicalby achievea detaileddescription of our shared this measure,one writtenby a woman:Sor literarycanon at this time. Recognizingthe Juana's1691 Respuesta a SorFilotea, on 64 importanceof required graduate reading percent of the readinglists. lists as a measureof whatwe deemvaluable, In termsof representationby century,for we understoodthat an analysisof theircon- Spainthe author canon was largest in the tents wouldreveal the end productof canon twentiethcentury, with 22 authors(12 with formationin this country.In aggregatewe 75 percentor greater representation)(Fig- looked to graduatereading lists fromlead- ure 1). Followingwere the sixteenth cen- ing Ph.D.-grantingfaculties to codifythe lit- turywith 12 (halfat 75 percentor more) and erarychoices thatpredominate at a specific the nineteenth century with 11 (ten at 75 time. percent or above). For canonicalSpanish Our results indicate that a substantial works, a different distribution occurred. canon does not exist in our field. For Span- Leadingwas the seventeenthcentury with ish literature,only two works and two au- 16 canonicaltitles, seven of which had 75 thors are taught to all graduate students. percentor greaterpresence on the reading For SpanishAmerican literature, no work lists. The twentieth century was second or authorearns unanimousapproval. The with 14 canonicaltitles, only two of which count of works that all graduate students achieved 75 percent representationon the can expect to have read in common,those readinglists. Next camethe nineteenthcen- with95 percentor greaterrepresentation on turywith 11 titles, six of them on 75 percent the readinglists, consisted of seven works or more of the lists (Figure2). from the seventeenth century and earlier The SpanishAmerican author canon was for Spanishliterature, and none for Spanish even more heavilyweighted in favorof the Americanliterature. Spanish authorswho twentiethcentury, with a totalof 29 authors. constitutethe next generationof scholars' This was more than twice that of the previ- commonbase includedCervantes, Galdos, ous century, the nineteenth,with 14 (Fig- Calderon, Rojas, Lope, Tirso, Cela, Ruiz, ure 3). Few authors were included from GarciaLorca, and Unamuno;from Spanish preceding centuries: three from the six- America, this foundation was limited to teenth century,three fromthe seventeenth, Garcia Marquez, Darfo, Neruda, Vallejo, and none from the eighteenth century and Borges. achieved 50 percent or more presence on Womenare largelyabsent from current the lists. Canonicalworks reinforcedthis required reading. From Spain only one pattern,with 18twentieth-century canonical woman writer was on three-quarters or titles (eight on 75 percentor more reading more (77percent) of graduatereading lists: lists), followed by seven from the nine- Emilia Pardo Bazan. With slightly more teenth century (two on 75 percent or than 50 percent penetrationof the reading above),three fromthe seventeenthcentury lists, SantaTeresa and Rosalia de Castro andone fromthe sixteenth,with none on 75 also stakeda claimto ourcurrent canon. No 6 HISPANIA 81 MARCH 1998 other Spanishfemale appeared.From His- author.Spanish reading lists had 39 authors panic America, GabrielaMistral of Chile on 75 percentor more of the lists, counting and Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz of Mexico anywork; in contrast,the lists revealedonly were present on 75 percent or more of the 22 works of literaturewith this degree of readinglists, but neitherreached 80 percent penetration. Spanish American lists fea- representation. Again, they stood alone. tured24 authorswith 75 percentor greater The rest of our canon is exclusivelymale. distribution,while only ten works reached Our search for women parallels our this level. By inference,agreement is easier search for common ground. In both cases to achieve for an authorthan for a particu- we are forcedto look at a 75 percentor even lar work that best representshim or her. a 50 percentcanon to test our assumptions, An unexpected finding of this study is since the 95 percentcanon was so small.An that for Hispanicliteratures, an analysisof expanded measure reveals that another graduatereading lists also illuminatesthe expectation is incorrect: the belief that enigmaticprocess of canon formation.For greatest canon presence would come from Spanish and SpanishAmerican literature, classicalperiods of ourliterary history. Only canonformation appears to take place only at the skeletal level of our seven-Spanish- in microcosm;the canonfor each institution item universalworks canon, on 95 percent evidently is shaped independently at the or morelists, did classicalperiods predomi- departmentallevel. The large numbers of nate. Contrary to common wisdom, the authors and works that appearonce only twentiethcentury actually represents one of among56 readinglists indicatethat in many the areas of strongest agreement among cases, individual convictions about the scholars with regardto authors.For Span- canon arejust that-the opinionof one lan- ish literaturethe numberof authorswith 50 guage facultyor perhapseven one special- percentor greaterrepresentation from the ist at a single university.Unanimity is lack- nineteenth and twentieth centuries was ing, and strong agreement is not wide- more than double the number of authors spread.The presence of authorsand works from the sixteenth and seventeenth centu- that are so obscure as to be unidentifiable ries. Even for works, at the level of 50 per- furthersuggests that facultymembers ex- cent and above,the most recent two centu- ercise great liberty in compilinggraduate ries had slightly more titles on the reading readinglists. A possible trend towardindi- lists than did the two classical ones. For vidually-fashionedreading lists preparedby Spanish America the canon is even more one student,typically with guidancefrom a skewed toward the twentieth century:29 facultycommittee, points toward even more canonical authors came from this period, variabilityin reading selections. These in- with 17 on 75 percent or more of the read- dividually-tailoredreading lists, used by five ing lists; 14 authors came from the nine- of 64 Ph.D.-grantingSpanish faculties con- teenth century and six from all other cen- tacted, are focused on one studentinstead turies combined.Spanish American works of an entire graduatecohort. They do not show the same pattern,with 25 titles from transmita common canon. the most recenttwo centuriesand onlyfour The questionsthen arise:how do shared, otherworks in the canon.Even in this well- requiredgraduate reading lists codify the represented and progressive period only canon, and what do they symbolizefor the one woman,a Nobel-prizewinner,Gabriela largerscholarly community? The answeris Mistral, appeared on half or more of the that these lists embody the canon's two lists. functions: curatorial and normative The limitedcanon that does exist is more (Altieri).The literaryacademic community of an authorcanon than a works canon.For is charged with assigning value to certain both Spanishand SpanishAmerican litera- works and then transmittingthese assess- ture, it is twice as likely that an authorwill ments to "succeedinggenerations of sub- be required than a specific work by that jects," ensuring that its academic descen- THE CANON IN SPANISH AND SPANISH AMERICAN LITERATURE7 dantsrecognize designatedworks of litera- those who workin the newerliterary realms ture (Herrnstein Smith 32). This role of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries reflects the originalmeaning of the canon, and literatureby women. Interest in this whichwas "thechoice of books in ourteach- areahas soaredsince the late 1980s:a 1996 ing institutions."(Bloom 15). literaturesearch yielded 52journal articles, Underlyingthis selection process is the six book chapters,and three books on the shared assumptionthat choices reflect lit- subject of the Spanishand SpanishAmeri- erary worth. Although "literaryvalue" is can literary canon (MLABibliography). contingentand problematic, and despite the Sources of informationthat have been uti- fact that other factorsalso affectcanon for- lizedby scholarsinclude polls of professors' mation,this perceptionis key. Selections, curricularselections (Holt),analysis of the it is assumed, are based on evaluations. contents of literaryanthologies and manu- Assessments are of two kinds: formaland als (Brown, Mullen "Emergence," informal(Herrnstein Smith). Informalap- Mancing,Perez), reviews of trendsin schol- praisalsinclude orallyexpressed opinions arly publications(Brown, Debicki, Perez), and course syllabi;formal ones encompass and investigationof criticalreception in the literaryprizes, scholarlyattention through past (Gies, Gold). A recent study of the publications,and inclusion in literary an- canonwith relationto the changingcharac- thologies.Contributing to the complexityof teristics as well as the contents of antholo- the process is the fact that these assess- gies appearedin Hispania(Mujica). At least ments both reflect and establish literary one scholarhas begun to examinethe evo- worth:"what are commonlytaken to be the lutionof SpanishAmerican literary studies signs of literaryvalue are, in effect, also its as a discipline (Mullen"Historiography"); springs"(34). however this field and the attendantissue The conceptof "literaryvalue" is elusive, of canon formationhave not yet been ex- andno universally-acceptedcriteria exist by plored to the extent that they have in which to define a "masterpiece"deserving (North)American studies (Shumway). of immortality.Important attributes of such Two hypotheses linkingmeasurable as- a workcan be identifiedbut not quantified. sessments of value with canon formation They includea work'saesthetic attainment have been advanced. One argues that (Hume), its ability to provide models choices of works are influencedby the cur- or ideals (Cook),and its innovationin terms rentsof scholarlydialogue in a field,and the of literaryhistory (Bloom).Other important otherposits thatthe canonis shapedby the aspects are historical and political signifi- availabilityof texts (Harris).Our findings cance, communicationof tradition,insight indicatethat neither of these is the sole or intothe humancondition, relation to theory, even the primarydeterminant of the present and culturalcontent. Scholars'value judg- Hispanicliterary canon. The presumption ments are also affected,consciously or not, that scholarlyactivity is a majorimpetus for by certainnonliterary factors whose impact reevaluation of the canon has not been is difficult to measure. Among the most confirmedby a positivecorrelation between notable are politics (Guillory),tradition or currentscholarship and readinglist selec- a reactionagainst it (Gates),historical and tions (Brownand Johnson). Similarly,the culturalcontexts (Lauter,Canons), the de- hypothesis that for Hispanic poetry the mographicsof evaluators(Lauter, "Race"), canonis determinedlargely by presence in and the desire for inclusion of minority literary anthologies (Mancing) is neither voices (Palumbo-Liu). Still another supportednor refutedby our results in this unquantifiablefactor is inertia. study.Although the majorityof our canoni- In Hispanic studies, research on the cal reading list poets are on 40 percent or canon has focused not on literaryvalue per more of the 100 anthologies surveyed by se but on assessments that establishvalue. Mancing,a numberof majordiscrepancies Studies have been conductedprimarily by betweenthis canonand the 1986anthology 8 HISPANIA 81 MARCH 1998 canon also exist, indicatingthat graduate unnecessaryconfusion as to clearstandards reading lists are influenced by other and goals in the teaching of literature.It is sources also. no wonder, then, that a recognized canon Less well understood than the factors has not yet emerged in regardto literature influencing literary selections is the dy- in Spanish..."(Mead). namic by which individualappraisals de- Whether stemmingfrom unchecked in- velop into widespreadagreement that cer- dividualautonomy, differences of critical tain works fulfill agreed-upon "valuable opinion or some other cause, the fact re- functions" at a given time (Herrnstein mains that at this time there is very little Smith). This evolutionary process is as agreementon the subjectof requiredread- much a sociologicalas a criticalenterprise. ing in our field. Knowingthis, we are faced Presumablyit involves negotiating agree- with choices. The theoreticaldecision we ment among holders of differentviews, in must confrontis the questionof whetheror microcosm and in macrocosm: at a local not we wanta fixed canon,and what values level (among members of a departmental should shape its formationif the answeris faculty),and at a cosmopolitanlevel (among affirmative.Pedagogical concerns involve membersof a commondiscipline at a range the issue of suggesting standardsfor post- of institutions).It is probablethat the only graduateeducation in Spanishand Spanish wayto apprehendthe mechanismsof canon Americanliterature. If we choose to adopt formationis to study a specific markerof a shared canon, what authorities should value over time, to see what changes and oversee its construction?By what criteria what remainsthe same. This type of inves- should selections be made? And what tigationis in developmentfor the graduate type-monolithic, "core" with choices, readinglists analyzedhere. works and/or authors-should it be? For The debateover the canonand its forma- ourselvesand our successors, discussionof tion must be "asmuch pedagogicalas it is ourcommon canon belongs at the top of our theoretical"(Alberti xii). Ourenunciation of agendaas we approachthe twenty-firstcen- the present canon raises issues of both tury.2 types.In theoreticalterms, the most evident and serious implicationof our findings is * NOTES thatwe may not have commonconceptions of literaryvalue. Pedagogicalimplications 1Personalcommunication to authors,Storrs, CT, May 25, 1995. involverepercussions that result from a lack 2Wethank ProfessorRichard A. Zipser,Chair of of consensus. By abdicating all but a re- the Departmentof ForeignLanguages and Literatures duced curatorialrole, and by carryingout of the Universityof Delaware,for his supportof this an idiosyncraticnormative role, our small project,and AlexanderA. Brown for preparingthe canonmay not serve the graduatestudents figures. whose readinglists we have compared. * WORKSCITED These discoveries may challenge us to reexaminethe foundationof common dis- Alberti,John, ed. The Canonin the Classroom:The course in Spanish and Spanish American PedagogicalImplications of Canon Revision in literarystudies. One leaderwith a half cen- AmericanLiterature. New York:Garland, 1995. Altieri,Charles. Canons and Consequences:Reflections turyof experiencein ourprofession, the late on the Ethical Force of Imaginative Ideals. Robert G. Mead, Jr., urged us to do pre- Evanston:Northwestern UP, 1990. cisely this. In a letter to the authorsfollow- Bloom, Harold.The WesternCanon: The Booksand ing the publicationof our pilotstudy on the Schoolof theAges. New York:Harcourt Brace and twentieth century novel,1Professor Mead Company,1994. Brown,Joan L. "Womenin SpanishLiterary History: prescientlygeneralized our findings to all Past, Presentand Future."Revista Canadiense de of Spanish literature."At present," he as- EstudiosHispdnicos 14.3 (1990),553-60. serted, "thereis too much 'free wheeling,' Brown,Joan L., and CristaJohnson. 'The Contempo- personal bias in choice of texts ... in short, raryHispanic Novel: Is There a Canon?"Hispania THE CANON IN SPANISH AND SPANISH AMERICAN LITERATURE9
78.2 (1995),252-62. LiteraryCanon: A Case Studyfrom the Twenties." Cook,Albert. Canonsand Wisdoms.Philadelphia: U Rpt. in Feminist LiteraryTheory: A Reader.Ed. of PennsylvaniaP, 1993. Mary Eagleton. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Debicki,Andrew P. "Contributionsby Hispanistsin Blackwell,1986, 39-45. the United States to the Study of TwentiethCen- Mancing,Howard. "A Consensus Canonof Spanish tury SpanishLiterature, 1950-89." Hispania 75.4 Poetry."Hispania 69.1 (1986)53-81. (1990),917-29. MLAInternational Bibliography, Vol. 2, European, Gates,Henry Louis Jr. LooseCanons. New Yorkand Asian, African and Latin AmericanLiteratures. Oxford:Oxford UP, 1991. New York: Modern Language Association of Gies, DavidT. "LostJewels and AbsentWomen: To- America,August 1996,online (WinSPRIS2.0). warda Historyof the Theatrein Nineteenth-Cen- Mujica,Barbara. 'Teaching Literature:Canon, Con- turySpain." Critica Hispdnica 17.1 (1995),81-93. troversy, and the LiteraryAnthology." Hispania Gold, Hazel. "Back to the Future: Criticism, the 80.2 (1997):203-15. Canon,and the Nineteenth-CenturyNovel." His- Mullen,Edward J. "EarlySpanish-American Histori- panic Review58.2 (1990), 179-204. ography:A Note on CanonFormation." Romance Gourman,Jack. The GourmanReport: A Rating of Notes36.3 (1996)227-35. Graduateand ProfessionalPrograms in American -. "TheEmergence of Afro-HispanicPoetry: Some and InternationalUniversities. Los Angeles: Na- Notes on CanonFormation." Hispanic Review 56.4 tionalEducation Standards Group, 5th ed., 1989, (1988) 435-53. 69. Palumbo-Liu,David. The Ethnic Canon: Histories, In- Guillory,John. CulturalCapital: The Problem of Lit- stitutions and Interventions.Minneapolis: U of eraryCanon Formation. Chicago: U of ChicagoP, MinnesotaP, 1995. 1993. Peterson'sGuide to GraduatePrograms in theHumani- Harris,Wendell V. "Canonicity."PMLA 105.1 (1991), ties and Social Sciences, 1991, Book Two. 110-21. Princeton:Peterson's Guides, 25th ed., 1990,589- Holt,Marion P. 'Twentieth-CenturySpanish Theater 620. and the Canon(s)." Anales de la Literatura Perez,Janet, "Introduction: Status of WomenWriters EspanolaContempordnea/Annals of Contemporary in Spain."Contemporary Women Writers of Spain. SpanishLiterature 17.1-2 (1992)47-54. Boston:Twayne, 1988, 1-7. Hume,David. "Of the Standardof Taste."Of the Stan- Shumway,David R. CreatingAmerican Civilization: dardof Tasteand OtherEssays. Ed. John W. Lenz. A Genealogyof American Literature as anAcademic Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill, 1965, 3-24. Discipline.Minneapolis: U of MinnesotaP, 1994. Lauter,Paul. Canons and Contexts.NewYork: Oxford Smith,Barbara Herrnstein, "Contingencies of Value." UP, 1991. Rpt.inCanons. Ed. RobertVon Hallberg. Chicago: -. "Raceand Genderin the Shapingof the American U of ChicagoP, 1983,5-39. 10 HISPANIA 81 MARCH 1998
Table 1. Representation of Spanish Authors On the 56 Reading Lists, Grouped by Genre (1100-1991)
A. AUTHORSOF NOVELS
Author Century Gender Number Percent Cervantes,Miguel de 17th M 56 100 Galdos,Benito Perez 19th M 56 100 Cela, CamiloJose 20th M 55 98 Unamuno,Miguel de 20th M 53 95 Clarin(Leopoldo Alas) 19th M 52 93 Quevedo,Francisco 17th M 51 91 Baroja,Pio 20th M 48 86 Martin-Santos,Luis 20th M 45 80 Ercilla,Alonso de 16th M 43 77 PardoBazan, Emilia 19th F 43 77 Valle-Inclan,Ramon del 20th M 43 77 Goytisolo,Juan 20th M 42 75 Valera,Juan 19th M 42 75 Montemayor,Jorge de 16th M 40 71 Aleman,Mateo 17th M 34 61 Gracian,Baltasar 17th M 33 59 Rodriguezde Montalvo,Garcia 16th M 31 55 San Pedro, Diego de 15th M 30 54 Sanchez Ferlosio, Rafael 20th M 30 54 Azorin (Jose MartinezRuiz) 20th M 29 52 Delibes, Miguel 20th M 29 52
B. POETS
Author Century Gender Number Percent Ruiz,Juan 13th M 53 95 Becquer, GustavoAdolfo 19th M 52 93 GarciaLorca, Federico 20th M 52 93 Gongora,Luis de 16th M 52 93 Luis de Leon, Fray 16th M 52 93 Machado,Antonio 20th M 52 93 Berceo, Gonzalode 12th M 51 91 Espronceda,Jose 19th M 51 91 Juande la Cruz,San 16th M 51 91 Manrique,Jorge 15th M 51 91 Vega, Garcilasode la 16th M 51 91 Jimenez,Juan Ramon 20th M 49 88 Quevedo,Francisco de 17th M 46 82 Cadalso,Jose 18th M 45 80 Guillen,Jorge 20th M 44 79 Santillana,Marques de 15th M 41 73 Aleixandre,Vicente 20th M 37 66 Salinas,Pedro 20th M 36 64 Vega, Lope de 17th M 36 64 Alberti,Rafael 20th M 35 63 THE CANON IN SPANISH AND SPANISH AMERICAN LITERATURE11 Herrera,Fernando de 16th M 33 59 Hernandez,Miguel 20th M 31 55 Cernuda,Luis 20th M 30 54 Castro,Rosalia de 19th F 29 52 Mena,Juan de 15th M 28 50
C. DRAMATISTS
Author Century Gender Number Percent Calderonde la Barca,Pedro 17th M 55 98 Rojas,Fernando de 16th M 55 98 Vega, Lope de 17th M 55 98 Tirso de Molina 17th M 54 96 GarciaLorca, Federico 20th M 53 95 Zorilla,Jose 19th M 50 89 Valle-Inclan,Ramon del 20th M 49 88 Rivas,Duque de 19th M 47 84 Alarcon,Juan Ruizde 17th M 46 82 Buero Vallejo,Antonio 20th M 44 79 Moratin,Leandro 19th M 43 77 Cervantes,Miguel de 17th M 37 66 Encina,Juan del 16th M 33 59 Rueda,Lope de 16th M 33 59 Benavente,Jacinto 20th M 31 55 Sastre,Alfonso 20th M 31 55
D. AUTHORSOF SHORTFICTION
Author Century Gender Number Percent Manuel,Juan 14th M 51 91 Cervantes,Miguel de 17th M 43 77 Quevedo,Francisco de 17th M 34 61
E. AUTHORSOF NONFICTION
Author Century Gender Number Percent Larra,Mariano Jose de 19th M 52 93 Ortegay Gasset,Jose 20th M 49 88 Teresa de Avila,Santa 16th F 41 73 Alfonso el Sabio 13th M 34 61 Feijoo,Benito 18th M 34 61 Azorin (Jose MartinezRuiz) 20th M 33 59 Unamuno,Miguel de 20th M 31 55
Table 2. Representation of Spanish American Authors on the 56 Reading Lists, Grouped by Genre (1100-1991)
A. AUTHORSOF NOVELS
Author Century Gender Number Percent GarciaMarquez, Gabriel 20th M 54 96 12 HISPANIA 81 MARCH 1998 Carpentier,Alejo 20th M 50 89 Fuentes, Carlos 20th M 50 89 Vargas Llosa,Mario 20th M 48 86 Rulfo,Juan 20th M 47 84 Azuela,Mariano 20th M 45 80 Gallegos,Romulo 20th M 45 80 Asturias,Miguel Angel 20th M 43 77 Giuiraldes,Ricardo 20th M 43 77 Cortazar,Julio 20th M 41 73 Echeverria,Esteban 19th M 41 73 Fernandezde Lizardi,Jose 19th M 41 73 Isaacs,Jorge 19th M 40 71 Rivera,Jose 20th M 40 71 Puig, Manuel 20th M 32 57 Arguedas,Jose Maria 20th M 31 55 CabreraInfante, Guillermo 20th M 29 52
B. POETS
Author Century Gender Number Percent Darfo,Ruben 19th M 55 98 Neruda,Pablo 20th M 55 98 Vallejo,Cesar 20th M 53 95 Marti,Jose 19th M 49 88 Hernandez,Jose 19th M 46 82 Paz, Octavio 20th M 46 82 Huidobro,Vicente 20th M 44 79 Mistral,Gabriela 20th F 44 79 JuanaInes de la Cruz,Sor 17th F 43 77 Guillen,Nicolas 20th M 40 71 Lugones,Leopoldo 20th M 40 71 Silva,Jose Asuncion 19th M 37 66 Heredia,Jose Maria 19th M 36 64 Borges, Jorge Luis 20th M 33 59 Casal,Julian del 19th M 31 55 Parra,Nicanor 20th M 31 55 GutierrezNajera, Manuel 19th M 30 54 Olmedo,Jose 19th M 29 52
C. DRAMATISTS
Author Century Gender Number Percent Usigli, Rodolfo 20th M 36 64 Sanchez,Florencio 20th M 31 55 JuanaInes de la Cruz,Sor 17th F 30 54 Marques,Rene 20th M 29 52 THE CANON IN SPANISH AND SPANISH AMERICAN LITERATURE13 D. AUTHORSOF SHORTFICTION
Author Century Gender Number Percent Borges,Jorge Luis 20th M 53 95 Quiroga,Horacio 20th M 45 80 Cortazar,Julio 20th M 38 68 Palma,Ricardo 19th M 33 59 Rulfo,Juan 20th M 30 54
E. AUTHORSOF NONFICTION
Author Century Gender Number Percent Garcilasode la Vega, Inca 17th M 52 93 Sarmiento,Domingo Faustino 19th M 50 89 Paz, Octavio 20th M 45 80 Rodo,Jose Enrique 20th M 43 77 JuanaInes de la Cruz,Sor 17th F 40 71 Colon,Cristobal 16th M 37 66 Marti,Jose 19th M 36 64 Cortes,Hernan 16th M 34 61 Diaz del Castillo,Bernal 17th M 33 59 Bello, Andres l9th M 32 57 Las Casas, FrayBartolome de 16th M 29 52 Reyes, Alfonso 20th M 28 50
Table 3. Representation of Spanish Literature on the 56 Reading Lists, Grouped by Century and Genre
12th CENTURY:POETRY
Work Year Author Number Percent Poemade mio Cid 1100 Anonymous 55 98 Milagrosde nuestrasenora 1190 Berceo 51 91
13th CENTURY:ALL GENRES
Work Year Author Number Percent Librode buenamor (poetry) 1283 Ruiz 53 95 Auto de los ReyesMagos (theatre) 1200 Anonymous 30 54
14th CENTURY:SHORT FICTION
Work Year Author Number Percent El CondeLucanor 1335 Manuel 50 89 14 HISPANIA 81 MARCH 1998 15th CENTURY:ALL GENRES
Work Year Author Number Percent Coplaspor la muertede mi padre 1440 Manrique 45 80 (poetry) Carcelde amor (novel) 1492 San Pedro 29 52
16th CENTURY:NOVEL
Work Year Author Number Percent Lazarillode Tormes 1554 Anonymous 56 100 La Araucana 1589 Ercilla 40 71 La Diana 1559 Montemayor 40 71 Amadis de Gaula 1508 Montalvo 31 55
16th CENTURY:THEATRE
Work Year Author Number Percent La Celestina 1502 Rojas 54 96
16th CENTURY:NONFICTION
Work Year Author Number Percent Vida 1565 SantaTeresa 32 57
17th CENTURY:NOVEL
Work Year Author Number Percent Don Quijotede la Mancha 1605 Cervantes 56 100 El Buscon 1605 Quevedo 51 91 Guzmdnde Alfarache 1602 Aleman 33 59 El Criticon 1651 Gracian 30 54
17th CENTURY:THEATRE
Work Year Author Number Percent El burladorde Sevilla 1630 Tirso de Molina 54 96 La vida es sueno 1635 Calder6n 54 96 Fuenteovejuna 1613 Vega, Lope de 47 84 La verdadsospechosa 1634 Alarcon 45 80 El caballerode Olmedo 1620 Vega, Lope de 41 73 Entremeses 1615 Cervantes 36 64 El alcaldede Zalamea 1643 Calderon 31 55 El gran teatrodel mundo 1645 Calderon 31 55 El medicode su honra 1635 Calderon 31 55 Peribanezyel comendador 1605 Vega, Lope de 29 52 de Ocana THE CANON IN SPANISH AND SPANISH AMERICAN LITERATURE15 17th CENTURY:SHORT FICTION
Work Year Author Number Percent Novelasejemplares 1613 Cervantes 43 77 Suenos 1627 Quevedo 34 61
18th CENTURY:POETRY
Work Year Author Number Percent Cartasmarruecas 1741 Cadalso 39 70
19th CENTURY:NOVEL
Work Year Author Number Percent La Regenta 1884 Clarin 47 84 PepitaJimenez 1874 Valera 42 75 Lospazos de Ulloa 1886 PardoBazan 40 71 FortunatayJacinta 1887 Galdos 37 66 Misericordia 1879 Galdos 31 55
19th CENTURY:POETRY
Work Year Author Number Percent El estudiantede Salamanca 1808 Espronceda 32 57 Romancerogitano 1898 GarciaLorca 28 50
19th CENTURY:THEATRE
Work Year Author ]Number Percent Don Juan Tenorio 1844 Zorrilla 50 89 Don Alvaro 1835 Rivas,Duque de 47 84 El si de las ninas 1805 Moratin 43 77
19th CENTURY:NONFICTION
Work Year Author Number Percent Articulosde costumbres 1825 Larra 52 93
20th CENTURY:NOVEL
Work Year Author Number Percent Niebla 1914 Unamuno 47 84 Tiempode silencio 1962 Martin-Santos 45 80 El drbolde la ciencia 1911 Baroja 39 70 La colmena 1951 Cela 39 70 Lafamilia/Pascual Duarte 1942 Cela 39 70 San Manuelbueno, mdrtir 1933 Unamuno 32 57 ElJarama 1956 Sanchez Ferlosio 29 52 16 HISPANIA 81 MARCH 1998
Senas de identidad 1966 Goytisolo,J. 29 52 TiranoBanderas 1926 Valle-Inclan 28 50
20th CENTURY:THEATRE
Work Year Author Number Percent La casa de BernardaAlba 1946 GarciaLorca 40 71 Lucesde Bohemia 1920 Valle-Inclan 39 70 Bodas de sangre 1933 GarciaLorca 37 66 Los interesescreados 1907 Benavente 29 52
20th CENTURY:NONFICTION
Work Year Author Number Percent La deshumanizaci6ndel arte 1925 Ortegay Gasset 33 59
Table 4. Representation of Spanish American Literatureon the 56 Reading lists, Grouped by Centuty and Genre
16th CENTURY:NONFICTION
Work Year Author Number Percent Cartasde relacion 1519 Cortes 32 57
17th CENTURY:NONFICTION
Work Year Author Number Percent Comentariosreales de/incas 1609 Garcilaso,Inca 39 70 Respuestaa Sor Filotea 1691 Cruz,Sor Juana 36 64 Historiaverdadera/conquista 1632 Diaz del Castillo 33 59
19th CENTURY:NOVEL
Work Year Author Number Percent El matadero 1871 Echeverria 41 73 Maria 1867 Isaacs 40 71 El periquillosarniento 1816 Lizardi 37 66
19th CENTURY:POETRY
Work Year Author Number Percent Martin Fierro 1834 Hernandez 45 80 Altazor 1893 Huidobro 30 54
19th CENTURY:SHORT FICTION
Work Year Author Number Percent Tradicionesperuanas 1872 Palma 30 54 THE CANON IN SPANISH AND SPANISH AMERICAN LITERATURE17 19th CENTURY:NONFICTION
Work Year Author Number Percent Facundo 1845 Sarmiento 45 80
20th CENTURY:NOVEL
Work Year Author Number Percent Cienanos de soledad 1967 GarciaMarquez 52 93 PedroParamo 1955 Rulfo 47 84 La muertede Artemio Cruz 1962 Fuentes 46 82 Losde abajo 1916 Azuela 45 80 Dona Barbara 1929 Gallegos 44 79 Don SegundoSombra 1926 Giiiraldes 43 77 El senorPresidente 1946 Asturias 40 71 La Vordgine 1924 Rivera 40 71 Rayuela 1963 Cortaizar 40 71 Lospasos perdidos 1953 Carpentier 38 68 Losrios profundos 1958 Arguedas 31 55 Trestristes tigres 1967 CabreraInfante 29 52
20th CENTURY:POETRY
Work Year Author Number Percent Residenciaen la tierra 1904 Neruda 28 50
20th CENTURY:THEATRE
Work Year Author Number Percent El gesticulador 1937 Usigli 33 59
20th CENTURY:SHORT FICTION
Work Year Author Number Percent Ficciones 1944 Borges 50 89 Cuentosde amor 1917 Quiroga 32 57
20th CENTURY:NONFICTION
Work Year Author Number Percent Ariel 1900 Rodo 42 75 El laberintode la soledad 1950 Paz 40 71 ..T......
18 HISPANIA 81 MARCH 1998
:.W
*6 * I 11 - C 1,1 5Sh5 -<
sE ,:< : . " : "ryt:' is
S1 4. aMl^l^^4P,,,t ag-kS,|,li ^ us E ?
.... B 4 -I. se toZs t<:? & : : ...... S
Figure 1. Representationof Spanishauthors on the 56 graduatereading lists by century. Authorswho have published in multiplegenres are entered only in their most prolific genre. Thirty-ninenames appearon 75 percent or more of the lists, and 24 appearon 50 to 75 percent.
*X1. a,,vf. fr. ?s,fl I; . si~ (I.4'S. @,@,\X'ttW. .fgM
Figure 2. Representationof Spanishworks of literatureon the 56 graduatereading lists by century.Twenty-two titles appearon 75 percentor more of the lists, and 33 appearon 50 to 75 percent. THE CANON IN SPANISH AND SPANISH AMERICAN LITERATURE19
1&:1
;I it
" ' "ttii ?ii' i ii F i? VXia ^[ e
MH Vti v
toIII Xed j~S~ ?bl" $Qg@ o.Ps: iiggeg
Figure 3. Representationof SpanishAmerican authors on the 56 graduatereading lists by century.Authors who have publishedin multiplegenres are enteredonly in their most prolificgenre. Twenty-four names appearon 75 percentor more of the lists, and 26 appear on 50 to 75 percent.
:Itffiedl:il 111ft iSlf 1:tii'** It*t . fst-: :::i@lii XC
^I1PQir:xlt liSB -rfiitt;
Figure 4. Representationof SpanishAmerican works of literatureon the 56 graduate readinglists by century.Ten titles appearon 75 percentor more of the lists, and 19 appear on 50 to 75 percent.