[143]
Galdós en 1897
Agnes M. Gullón
Although designed for all levels, this book best suits readers with some cultural sophistication; the amount of background material offered in the 502 footnotes is greater than that in most textbook editions, as is the detail of the explanations. And necessarily so: the novel's thick cultural texture requires considerable scrutiny. Luciano García Lorenzo clearly distinguishes which hitherto unexplained items needed commentary as well as those which though annotated in previous editions, needed to be included again to make his the comprehensive aid it is.
The seven subdivisions of the «Introducción» cover the main points of interest in Misericordia. Other Galdosian works or biographical matter (as the author himself points out) are not treated. A wise decision, I think in view of the probable superficiality of their treatment in this context and the consequent loss of the patient pace and tone achieved by this more limited object of study. The first section, «Un año importante: 1897», recalls how decisive that year was in Galdós' literary life. On February 7th he read his now famous entry speech to the Real Academia Española de la Lengua, thus celebrating together with his friend Marcelino Menéndez Pelayo their triumph over the hostilities that had prevented his membership earlier. And during 1897 he both wrote and published Misericordia, evaluated by García Lorenzo as:
| no sólo una de sus mejores obras sino también el testimonio de una desilusión ideológica, que había ido fraguándose como consecuencia del fracaso de los objetivos regeneracionistas protagonizados por esa clase media en la que el novelista había puesto sus esperanzas; Galdós, en 1897, [...] se dirige al pueblo y con él va a protagonizar Misericordia (pp. 12-13). |
Seeing the novel as Galdós' pedestal for the pueblo is central to García Lorenzo's discussion. The sections «El Madrid de Misericordia», «Sobre la composición narrativa» and «Realidad y fantasía» are a bit short and somewhat lacking in stylistic continuity as compared with the fifth -and I think best- section, «La sociedad española a través de la novela» (pp. 28-45). Perhaps it was inevitable, given the intention of gathering pertinent statements on each aspect. Scholarly opinions are included in section 5 too, but in lesser proportion, permitting a firmer linking of the critic's own thoughts. His assessments of Doña Paca and Frasquito Ponte, emphasizing narrative naming, are good; equally good, his description of don Romualdo, which relates him to other figures in Galdós' clerical typology, showing that [144]
| hay un evidente proceso de signo positivo que va desde el provinciano, soberbio e intransigente don Inocencio de Doña Perfecta y de Luis Gonzaga Tellería de La familia de León Roch hasta don Romualdo, pasando por los aburguesados sacerdotes de Ángel Guerra, el caritativo Manuel Flores de Halma y el ejemplar Nazarín (p. 33). |
The significance of Almudena, one of Galdós' most problematic creatures according to Robert Ricard, is judged through that critic's words together with those of Denah Lida on Almudena's tricultural mixture as observable in his language. Finally, of course, there is Benina. José María Jover's sociological view of this character (whose presence in the novel's middle class atmosphere allows the reader to witness the interaction of social classes of the period) is evoked in a generous quotation of Jover on Galdós' demofilia, a consequence of both his ideology and his literary naturalism.
In «El simbolismo religioso», Galdós' artistic use of his sociological material is discussed, and Benina's virtues are seen as the spur out of naturalism into spiritualism. In the last section, «El texto de la novela», it is confirmed that the Nelson edition (Paris, 1913) does not differ from the first edition (Tello, 1897), except for the addition of two prologues. The later Hernando editions (1932 on) are censored for their typographical changes and numerous errors -some minor, but some less minor, like putting Benina's name in italics. As García Lorenzo writes, «El nombre correcto de Benina es, claro está, Benigna, pero esta forma, llamémosla culta, resulta desconocida e irrelevante en el uso lingüístico de la novela» (p. 49). The various textual modalities encountered by the editor in his research are neatly summarized, thus assisting today's reader.
Due to the frequent irregularities in most of the characters' speech, certain linguistic phenomena are pointed out. These include «asimilación o disimilación, simplificación de diptongos, sinéresis, sinalefas e hiatos» and «pérdida de las oclusivas sonoras, junto con el correspondiente proceso de relajación del punto de tensión y sonorización de las correspondientes sordas» (p. 52), etcetera. Such classification would have been more useful if it had been accompanied by further examples, but enlarging this rather arid, technical sub-section might have threatened the readability of the rest of the introduction.
«Nuestra edición» (pp. 53-54) states that the first edition was the model followed. Also, the criteria for the footnotes are specified: a) exclusively lexical notes are aimed at a multi-level audience; b) matters relating to the novel's historical and social background are treated in detail because they seemed essential; and c) geographical descriptions are given only of the places in Madrid related directly to the novel's action, and Pedro de Répide's Las calles de Madrid (1981) was the chief source of information.
All in all, a careful, helpful, scholarly edition of one of Galdós' most exhilarating novels.
Temple University