Visor de obras.

Scanlon’s «Introduction» leaves little doubt that her guide has been shaped in accordance with the in-vogue critical formula that treats Galdós’s novels principally in terms of historical contexts. First she reviews events and circumstances that produced the intellectual and ideological climate in which Galdós wrote Marianela: the mid-century introduction of Krausism; the Revolution of 1868; the ensuing six years of political instability; the Restoration of the Bourbon monarchy and the attendant disillusionment of liberal intellectuals like Galdós; the introduction of positivism; and the debates of the 1870s over the relative merits of (1) Krausism and Positivism as foundations for progress and (2) Idealism and Realism as canons of aesthetics. Finally, minimizing the value of the search for Marianela’s sources as well as the interpretation of its symbolism, she effectively dismisses from her considerations these two approaches, which, as she acknowledges, are those that have dominated

In Chapter 2 the concern for the regeneration of Spain evident in Marianela is set against the background of controversy over Krausism and Positivism, and especially the value that their respective adherents placed on science as a basis for progress. The social and ethical implications of these two philosophies are linked in Marianela to ambiguities in character portrayal and scenic description, which are seen as products of the attempt to counterbalance idealist and materialist elements. Scanlon’s conclusions about the attitudes of Galdós toward science, industry and progress, which are cloaked in these ambiguities, are based on a consideration of the significance of Pablo’s passage from blindness to sight, Teodoro’s attitude toward science, and Galdós’s intention in contrasting pastoral and industrial settings.

In Chapter 3 attention is focused on the relationship between Marianela and contemporary views of the social question, in particular the condition of the lower classes. Public discussions on education as a necessity for social stability and progress are proposed as influences on Galdós’s creation of Marianela as a representative of the uneducated, defenseless, abandoned child. Of special interest are: (1) the analyses of the roles of Teodoro, Sofía, la Señana, Don Francisco, Don Manuel and Florentina in the development of the theme of society’s failure, through ignorance, self-interest and insensitivity, to meet Marianela’s material, spiritual, intellectual and emotional needs; (2) the presentation of Marianela, the Centeno family (especially Celipín), and the Golfín brothers, in relation to the topic of individual responsibility for self-advancement; and (3) the reference to similarities between the educational and ethical reforms proposed by Galdós and the Krausist view of the social question, particularly as it was presented by Azcárate.

In Chapter 4 the romantic realism of Marianela is traced to the literary traditions established by romantic and post-romantic writers like Goethe, Hugo, Sue, Nodier, Dickens and Balzac. The structure of Galdós’s novel is described as climactic, with tension and suspense created through the use of mystery and enigma, the gradual limiting of narrative options, an initial slowness of pace followed by acceleration, and foreshadowing. Cited as further indications of romantic realism are the contrasting of poetic and prosaic presentations of settings and the balancing of poetic and verisimilar character portrayals, in which irony and humour are frequently employed to moderate extremes in the description of good and evil qualities. To the mixture of romantic and realistic dialogue are ascribed the varying degrees of appropriate diction according to the characters’ social position. The romantic realism of Marianela is also attributed in part to the presence of an omniscient narrator who gives background information, relates the fictional world to the real world, and interjects his own, often didactic, commentaries,

In her «Conclusion» Scanlon returns to the subject of idealism and realism in Galdós’s novel, highlighting the defense of realism that is implicit in the account of discrepancies between the facts of Marianela’s life and the fanciful reports about her that circulated after her death. She underscores the novel’s relationship to the contemporary debates over Idealism and Realism and deduces that for Galdós realism was not a product of mimesis alone but was instead a product of interaction between external reality and the consciousness perceiving it. To this approach and to Galdós’s attention to contemporary ideological concerns and aesthetic principles she assigns the success of Marianela.

The appended «Bibliographical Note», which contains fifty-nine items, lists eighteen works of general criticism dealing with Galdós and twenty-two studies on Marianela, most of which are mentioned in the main body of the text or referred to by their numbers. This section is convenient and useful, although among the initiated there will undoubtedly be diverse opinions with respect to the annotations, which, if they conformed to more informative and less evaluative norms, might better serve the objective, self-directed investigator.

Although an ample number of footnotes providing collateral information and references to differing opinions are evidence of Scanlon’s desire to give an in-depth, balanced evaluation of Marianela, the view that ultimately emerges is necessarily limited by the selectivity of her critical approach. In short, eschewing the considerable body of research about the sources and symbolism of Marianela, Scanlon focuses on an appreciation of the significance of the novel as a reflection of particulars of nineteenth-century history, literary conventions and social reality.

Fredericksburg, Virginia