Canon in Spanish Spanish American Literatura

7/30/2019 Canon in Spanish Spanish American Literatura

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/canon-in-spanish-spanish-american-literatura 1/20

Required Reading: The Canon in Spanish and Spanish American Literature

Author(s): Joan L. Brown and Crista JohnsonSource: Hispania, Vol. 81, No. 1 (Mar., 1998), pp. 1-19Published by: American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/345448 .

Accessed: 21/04/2013 12:02

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 formsof scholarship. 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

This content downloaded from 157.253.50.10 on Sun, 21 Apr 2013 12:02:56 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/345448?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/345448?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatsp



Required Reading: The Canon in Spanish and

Spanish American Literature

JoanL. BrownCristaJohnson

UniversityfDelaware

Abstract: The requiredgraduatereading ists of 56 leadingPh.D.-granting panish aculties n the United

Stateswereanalyzed o characterize he currentcanonforSpanishandSpanishAmerican iterature.The da-tabaseconsistedof14,686 tems.Little onsensuswas foundregarding uthors, ndevenless forspecificworksof literature.Onlytwo authorsand twoworks fromSpainachieved100percent representation n the lists.

Thirty-nine uthors(one female)and 22 male-authored orksfromSpain,and 24 authors(two female)andtenmale-authoredworksfromSpanishAmericawerepresenton 75percentor more of the lists.Atthe otherend of the spectrum,nearly1,000differentitlesappearedustonce inthe database,demonstrating resenceon onlya single reading ist. The findingsshow littleagreementaboutwhatconstitutes iterary alue n thisfield.This has importantmplicationsorgraduate ducation.

Key Words: canon,Spanish iterature,SpanishAmericaniterature,iteraryhistory,womenwriters,gradu-atereading ists, graduate ducation

Introduction

The issue of literarycanons has beencentralto both academic andpopulardis-course in this country nthe lastdecadeofthe twentieth entury Gates).AlthoughhefieldofHispanic tudieshas not been insu-latedfromthis debate,there has been noformalattemptto describe the Hispaniccanon. We previously looked at a single

genre in ourmost recenthistoricalperiod,the contemporary novel (Brown and

Johnson). Ourfindings indicatedthat forthe post-1936novelcanon there is no una-

nimityandvery little agreement.This ar-ticle reports the findings of a study de-

signed to describe our current canon for

Hispanicliteratures in the United Statesacross alleras andgenres.Theoverarchingquestion that we sought to answer was:

does consensus indeed exist formost erasandgenres, and, if so, what is ourshared

literarycanonat this time?

Methods

Therequired raduate eadingistsof56

Ph.D.-grantingSpanish faculties in this

country supplied the data on which this

descriptionof ourliterarycanon is based.Our choice of programswas foundedon

published rankings of U.S. graduateschools,includinghe 40highest-rated ro-grams listed by Gourmanand 63 Spanishgraduate programs listed in Peterson'sGuide.Everyregion of the United Stateswas represented. Twenty-five ists came

from nstitutionsnthenortheast,nine fromthe midwest, five from the Pacific coast,four rom heRockyMountainegion,eightfrom the south Atlanticarea andfive fromsouthcentral tates. Listswereacquiredbymeans of letters to departmenthairs,with

follow-up elephonecalls when necessary.Wheneverpossible, graduatereading istsat thePh.D. level wereselectedfromthose

received,therationalebeingthat areading

list for the Ph.D. representsthe broadestpossible compendiumof requiredworks.Combined M.A./Ph.D. lists were usedwhen available. f an institutionhad inde-

pendentM.A.andPh.D.readingists,thesetwo lists were merged; duplicateentrieswere counted only once for that school.







2 HISPANIA 81 MARCH 1998

Reading ists at the M.A. level were usedwhen no otheroptionwas offered.The 56lists that comprisethis study include ten

Ph.D.orequivalentists,six combined ists,ten mergedM.A./Ph.D.lists, and 30 M.A.lists.

A databaseof the literatureportionsofthese reading istswasdevelopedandcom-

piled on a Universityof Delaware main-framecomputer,with the assistanceof Dr.LawrenceHotchkiss,LeadConsultant/Ana-

lystoftheComputingndNetworkServices

Department tthe Universityof Delaware.

For each institution,we enteredthe infor-mationon thereading ist.Listings eceived

commonly ncluded he authorandtitle ofeach work.We provided he date of publi-cationof each work as well as the national-

ity andgender of each author.Nationalitywas determined according to countryofbirthexceptwhenplacementon a readinglist conflicted with that criterion (e.g.,Cort6s);wemaintainedheintegrity f eachschool's classification

regardlessof the

author'sbirthplace.Forpoets,dateofbirthalso wassupplied.Thirtyyearswere addedto the dateofbirth norderto situatepoetsin their appropriatecenturies, since thiswould be the age by whichthey could rea-

sonably be expected to publish. For allother authors,dates of publicationdeter-mined hecenturyplacement.Weclassifiedworks into six genre categories,introduc-

ing greaterspecificity o the commonhead-

ing of "Prose" as a single entity. Thesegenredivisionswere:novel,poetry, heatre,shortfiction,andessay, with the sixth cat-

egory of "other" eservedfor those itemsthat couldnot be labeled underthese divi-sions (e.g., films).

In order to ascertain commonalities

amongvarious ndividualistingsofessaysand short fiction,some individualentrieswerecombinedunder he title of the collec-

tion in which they appeared. This enableddifferent selections from a single book to

register as repeated references to the same

volume. For example, the presence of

Larra's "Vuelva Ud. mafiana" on one

institution's list was tantamount to a listingof "En este pais" on another; both are con-

tained n (andare ikely orepresent tudent

familiaritywith)the collectionArticulosdecostumbres. onsolidationwas undertaken

only orauthorswhoalreadyhadsignificantrepresentationon the reading ists, whichwe determinedo bepresenceonone-quar-ter of the lists. Its purposewas to revealcanonicalworks whose status could be ob-scuredbyreferences o individualhaptersor stories,which the computercounted asdistinctworks.

Listingsof a singleworkundermultipletitles (aproclivityof some authorssuch as

Sender,but also a reflectionofalternateorabbreviateditles)were consolidatedwhen

theywerenoted,to countasone entrywiththe initial date of publication.Erroneous

titles, inaccurate enre classifications,and

misspellingswere corrected when found.Some works and authors could not beidentifiedor classified,as they did not ap-pearin standard eferenceworks or inanybibliographical isting available o us. We

were, therefore,forced to exclude these

items, which totaled 82 entries. Since no

single unidentifiablework appeared onmore than one reading ist,the eliminationof these mystery tems hadno effecton ourcalculationsof canonicity.

The analysisofliterarygenresbycentu-ries covered the years from 1100 to 1991.Ourclosingdaterepresents he last dateofrevision for the reading ists received andtherefore s the last possibledate ofpubli-cation for an included work. This purelyhistorical division allows a dispassionatelook at literary evolution, free from theinfluenceof external frames of referencecontained ndivisionssuch as "Generationof '98"or even "GoldenAge."Withineach

century,literature rom Spainwas subdi-vided into novel, poetry, theatre, short

fiction,essay, and "other."Literaturerom

SpanishAmericawas subdivided he same

way for the 55 institutions that had SpanishAmerican literature on their reading lists;one institution had none. The five Portu-

guese-language reading lists that were re-

ceived were not included in the present

study.We sought the answer to a fundamental







THE CANON IN SPANISH AND SPANISH AMERICAN LITERATURE3

question:which works and authors were

represented,andhow oftendidthey appearon the reading ists?For allgenres except

poetry,we analyzed he reading ists to seehow many titles and how many authorswerepresenton each list.Weincludedanycombination of works but counted eachauthoronly once per institution.We thendeterminedheproportionalepresentationof everywork and authorcited.Forpoetrywe recorded he author'spresenceoneach

list, again allowing any combination ofworks.This enabledus to achievean accu-

rate count on which to base calculationsofproportionalepresentation.We could notdetermineproportionalepresentationromtitles of poeticworksbecause an accuratecount could notbe obtained: ndividual o-ems, though comprisinga much smallershareof the poet'swork,wouldbe countedthe same as a singlevolumeofpoetry.Wedidnotrelate eachpoemto the first collec-tioninwhich it appeared,because to do sowould introduce

inaccuracies,giventhe

wide use of anthologies.We also looked atthe distributionof writersandtheir works

by gender. In analyzing his data,percent-ageswerecalculatedo fourdecimalplacesbutexpressed o the nearestwholenumber.

Results

One hundredpercentof the 74 Spanishfacultiesthatwere askedto participate e-

plied.Eighteenofthem,however,couldnotbe included nthis study.Ten did not actu-

allyoffer he Ph.D.Three did not use read-

ing lists, and three used readinglists thatwere not generated by facultybutby indi-vidualgraduate tudents.We includedoneformulation f requiredworks of literaturethatrepudiated he title of "ReadingList."Two model lists ofrecommendedreadingsforPh.D. candidatesouse indevising heir

own lists were not included in the presentstudy of readings that are explicitly re-

quired to fulfill degree requirements.The number of all entries for the reading

lists ranged widely. The shortest list (atthe

M.A. level) contained 44 items, and the

longest (a Ph.D. list) had 988. Our database

containing llthe lists totalled14,686tems.Atotalof780authorsappearedon the lists,including ne"Anonymous"romSpainand

one "Anonymous"romSpanishAmerica.Countriesrepresented, n alphabeticalor-

der,wereArgentina,Bolivia,Brazil,Chile,Colombia,Cuba,DominicanRepublic,Ec-

uador,El Salvador,Guatemala,Honduras,Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama,Paraguay,Peru,PuertoRico,Spain, he UnitedStates,Uruguay,andVenezuela.Includingdupli-cate titlesatdifferentnstitutions,he read-

ing lists featured3,480entries in the cat-

egory of novel, 2,309 dramaentries, 716short fictionitems, 1,685nonfiction temsand six entries in the categoryof "other."Thecount orpoetry,with ndividual oemsweightedequallywith ullvolumesofpoetryand ncludingduplicateitles, otalled6,490.

For the novel,the minimumnumberonareading istwas14,andthe maximumwas

171;the mean with standarddeviation orall 56 schools was 62? 34 (1S.D.).Theatreentries

rangedrom a low of five

playsto a

highof 107; hemeanwas41 ?26. For short

fiction, he minimum equiredwasone,andthe maximumwas35;themean was 13? 8.Nonfictionrangedfrom wo entries to 152.The mean was 30 ? 24. In the category"other,"he numberofentriesranged romone tofive,with a mean of 3 ?3. Forpoetry,the lowest numberof allentries(againwith-out distinguishing ndividualpoems fromvolumesofpoetry)was 14,and thehighestnumberof entrieswas 656;the meanwas116? 110.

Onlytwo works and two authors(allow-ingforacombination fworks)wereon 100

percent of the graduate reading lists.LazarillodeTormes1554)andDonQuijotede la Mancha 1605)were the books (Table3). The two authors were Miguel deCervantesandBenito PerezGald6s(Table1). Although the author "Anonymous"

achieved 100percent representationn ev-ery genre except theatre, we excluded this

author from our report for the obvious rea-

son that he or she was not a single entity.

The findings are presented in Tables 1-4.

Absence of a century or genre from these

tables indicates that no work in that period







4 HISPANIA 81 MARCH1998

or of thattypereached50percentpenetra-tion of the reading ists;forpoetry,worksneeded to be cited in an identicalmanner

on this percentageof lists.Expanding he requirement or canoni-

cal statusslightly, oencompassauthorson

95 percentor more of the lists, yieldedan

enlargedcanon.Fernandode Rojas,Pedro

Calder6nde la Barca,Lopede Vega, and

CamiloJos6 Celafrom Spain,along with

RubenDarioandPabloNerudaofHispanicAmerica,all figuredon 98 percent of the

reading ists. CloselyfollowingwereTirso

de Molina from Spain and SpanishAmerica's GabrielGarciaMarquezon 96

percentof the lists.Featuredon 95percentwereJuanRuiz,FedericoGarciaLorcaand

Miguelde UnamunoromSpain,andC6sar

VallejoandJorge Luis Borges from His-

panicAmerica.Works with 95 percentor

greaterrepresentationwere, in addition othe twoalreadynoted: he PoemademioCid

(1100) on 98 percent, Rojas'La Celestina

(1502), Tirso's El Burlador de Sevilla(1630), and Calder6n'sLa vida es sueffo

(1635),on 96 percent;andRuiz'sLibrode

buenamor(1283)on 95 percent.No Span-ish Americanworkwas presenton 95 per-cent ormore of the reading ists.

By stretchingthe definitionof "canoni-cal" o 75percent, he canon ncreased ur-ther. NowaddedfromSpainwere nine ad-

ditionalauthorsof novels, 14 more poets,six addeddramatists,woauthorsof short

fiction, and two authors of nonfiction.Anumberof authorsachieved 75 percentor

greaterrepresentation n multiplegenresindependently:Cervantesas a novelistand

authorof shortfiction,Quevedoas a novel-

ist andpoet,GarciaLorcaas apoetanddra-

matist,andValle-Inclinas a novelist anddramatist.Withduplicates emoved, he 75

percentcanon totalled39 (Figure 1). Ca-nonicalSpanishworks alsowereexpandedby this measure, although by less than halfthe number of additional authors. Five nov-

els were added, plus two more works of

poetry, five more plays, two works of short

fiction andone added work ofnonfiction,for

a combined total of 22 canonical works of

literature:eight dramas, seven novels, four

worksofpoetry, woworksof shortfiction,andone workof nonfiction Figure2).

For Spanish America, the 75 percent

canon also was muchgreaterthan thatofthe more restrictive95 percentdefinition.This calculationyielded eight additional

novelists,six morepoets,one moreauthorof shortfiction,and fourofnonfiction,ora

totalof 24SpanishAmericanauthorson 75

percentormore ists (Figure3).Therewere

ten canonicalHispanicAmericanworksbythis measure.As with Spanishliterature,this wasabouthalf he numberof additional

authorsincluded (countingreferences tomultipleworks).A totalof six novels,one

workof short fiction,one work of poetry,and two of nonfictionwere canonicalac-

cording o this standard Figure4).If atrulybroaddefinitionof canonicals

adopted-one by which a work or authorneed onlyappearon 50percentor moreof

the readinglists in this study-then our

canonencompassesmuchlargernumbers

of worksand authors. For

Spain,when

these new entrieswere addedto existingtotals,the yieldwas 21 novelists,25 poets,16dramatists,hree authorsof shortfiction

andsevenauthorsofnonfiction,or agrandtotal of 72 authorsin all categories.Thisnumbershrunk o 63whenmultiplegenrelistings of the same writerwere removed.Inadditiono thoseappearingarlier, hese

nowincludedanotherentryforLope(as a

poet as well as a dramatist),and also for

Unamunoand Azorin(bothas authorsofnonfictionas well as novelists). Quevedoearneda thirdentry(as an authorof short

fiction)andCervantes fourth(asa drama-

tist). Three of the authorswere women:Emilia PardoBazain n 77 percent,SantaTeresaon73percent,andRosaliadeCastro

on 52percentof the reading ists. Intermsofworks, herewere55,one of themfemale-authored.PardoBazain's 886Lospazosde

Ulloa was on 71 percent of the lists.Our canon of Spanish American authors

was enriched by opening the canon's gates

at 50 percent representation. A combined

total of 17 novelists, 18 poets, four drama-

tists, five authors of short fiction, and 12

authors of nonfiction were canonical by this








measure, adding up to 56, reduced to 49whenduplicate ntries orthe same authorswere removed. These included Borges,

Cortizar,Rulfo,Marti,andPaz ntwogenrecategories (Borges as an author of shortfiction and a poet, Cortaizar nd Rulfo asnovelistsandauthors of shortfiction,andPaz and Marti as poets and authors of

nonfiction),as well as SorJuanain three

categories(asapoet,dramatist, ndauthorof nonfiction). She and Gabriela Mistralweretheonly wowomen ncluded.Twenty-nineworksof literaturewere canonicalby

thismeasure,one writtenby a woman:SorJuana's1691Respuesta SorFilotea,on 64

percentofthe reading ists.Intermsofrepresentationycentury,or

Spainthe authorcanon was largestin thetwentiethcentury,with22 authors(12with75percentorgreaterrepresentation) Fig-ure 1). Followingwere the sixteenth cen-

turywith12(halfat 75percentormore)andthe nineteenthcenturywith 11 (ten at 75

percentor

above).For canonical

Spanishworks, a different distribution occurred.

Leadingwas the seventeenthcenturywith16 canonical itles, seven of which had 75

percentorgreaterpresenceon thereadinglists. The twentieth century was secondwith 14 canonical itles, onlytwoof whichachieved 75percentrepresentation n the

readingists. Next camethe nineteenth en-

turywith11titles,sixof them on75percentormore of the lists (Figure2).

TheSpanishAmerican uthor anonwasevenmoreheavilyweightedinfavorofthetwentieth entury,witha totalof29 authors.Thiswasmore than twice thatoftheprevi-ous century,the nineteenth,with 14 (Fig-ure 3). Few authorswere included from

preceding centuries: three from the six-teenthcentury, hreefrom heseventeenth,and none from the eighteenth centuryachieved 50 percentor morepresence on

the lists. Canonical works reinforced this

pattern,with 18twentieth-centurycanonical

titles (eight on 75 percent or more reading

lists), followed by seven from the nine-

teenth century (two on 75 percent or

above), three from the seventeenth centuryand one from the sixteenth, with none on 75

percentofthe reading ists (Figure4).At the oppositeend of the canonspec-

trum,our analysisturnedup many single

entries for both works and authors.Thecountoftitles hatappeared nlyonceinourdatabaseof 56 readinglists was 966.Thenumberofauthorsappearing nceonlywas229.

Discussion

Ourgoal in the present study was toachieveadetaileddescription four shared

literary anonatthis time.Recognizingheimportanceof required graduatereadinglistsas a measureof whatwe deemvaluable,weunderstood hat ananalysisoftheir con-tents wouldreveal he endproductofcanonformationn this country. naggregatewelooked to graduatereading ists from ead-

ing Ph.D.-grantingaculties ocodify helit-

erarychoices thatpredominatet aspecifictime.

Ourresults indicate that a substantialcanon does not exist inour field.ForSpan-ish literature,only two works and two au-thors are taughtto all graduatestudents.For SpanishAmerican iterature,no workor author earns unanimousapproval.Thecount of worksthat all graduatestudentscanexpectto have readin common, hosewith95percentorgreaterrepresentationnthe reading ists, consistedof sevenworksfromthe seventeenth centuryand earlier

forSpanishiterature, ndnone forSpanishAmerican iterature.Spanishauthorswhoconstitutethe nextgenerationof scholars'commonbase includedCervantes,Gald6s,Calder6n,Rojas,Lope,Tirso, Cela, Ruiz,GarciaLorca,andUnamuno;romSpanishAmerica, this foundationwas limited toGarciaMarquez,Dario, Neruda,Vallejo,andBorges.

Womenarelargelyabsentfromcurrent

required reading. From Spain only onewoman writer was on three-quarters or

more (77 percent) of graduate reading lists:

Emilia Pardo Bazin. With slightly more

than 50 percent penetration of the reading

lists, Santa Teresa and Rosalia de Castro

also staked a claim to our current canon. No








otherSpanish emaleappeared.From His-

panicAmerica,GabrielaMistralof Chileand SorJuanaInes de la Cruz of Mexico

were presenton 75percentormoreof thereadingists,butneitherreached80percentrepresentation. Again, they stood alone.The rest of our canon s exclusivelymale.

Our search for women parallels oursearch for commonground.Inboth caseswe areforced o lookata75percentor evena 50percentcanon o test ourassumptions,sincethe95percentcanonwasso small.An

expanded measure reveals that another

expectation is incorrect: the belief thatgreatestcanonpresencewouldcome fromclassicalperiodsofour iterary istory.Onlyat the skeletallevel of our seven-Spanish-itemuniversalworkscanon,on 95percentor more ists,did classicalperiodspredomi-nate. Contraryto common wisdom, thetwentieth enturyactually epresentsone ofthe areas of strongest agreementamongscholarswithregardto authors.ForSpan-ishliteraturehe numberof authorswith50

percentorgreater representationromthenineteenth and twentieth centuries wasmore than double the number of authorsfromthe sixteenth and seventeenth centu-ries. Even forworks,at the level of 50per-centandabove,the most recenttwo centu-ries hadslightlymore titles on the readinglists than did the two classical ones. For

SpanishAmerica the canon is even moreskewed toward the twentiethcentury:29

canonicalauthors came fromthis period,with 17 on 75 percentor more of the read-

ing lists; 14 authors came from the nine-teenth centuryandsix fromall other cen-turiescombined.SpanishAmericanworksshow the same pattern,with 25 titles fromthe most recenttwocenturiesandonlyfourotherworksinthe canon.Even nthis well-

representedand progressive period onlyonewoman,a Nobel-prizewinner, abriela

Mistral,appearedon half or more of thelists.

The limited canon that does exist is more

of an author canon than a works canon. For

both Spanish and Spanish American litera-

ture,it is twice as likelythat an authorwillbe required than a specific work by that

author.Spanish eadingists had39 authorson 75percentor more of the lists,countinganywork;ncontrast,he lists revealedonly

22 works of literaturewith this degree ofpenetration. SpanishAmerican lists fea-tured24authorswith75percentorgreaterdistribution,whileonlyten works reachedthis level.Byinference,agreements easierto achieve foran author hanfora particu-larworkthat best representshim orher.

An unexpected findingof this studyisthatforHispanic iteratures,ananalysisof

graduatereading ists also illuminates he

enigmaticprocessof canonformation.ForSpanishandSpanishAmerican iterature,canonformation ppears o takeplace onlyinmicrocosm;hecanon oreach nstitution

evidently is shaped independentlyat the

departmentalevel. The large numbers ofauthors and works thatappearonce onlyamong56readingists indicate hat nmanycases, individual convictions about thecanon arejustthat-the opinionof one lan-

guage facultyor

perhapseven one

special-ist at a singleuniversity.Unanimitys lack-

ing, and strong agreement is not wide-

spread.Thepresenceof authorsandworksthat are so obscureas to be unidentifiablefurthersuggests thatfacultymembers ex-ercise greatlibertyin compilinggraduatereading ists.Apossibletrendtoward ndi-

vidually-fashionedeadingistsprepared yone student, ypicallywithguidance roma

faculty ommittee,points oward ven more

variabilityn readingselections. These in-dividually-tailoredeadingists,usedbyfiveof 64Ph.D.-granting panish acultiescon-

tacted,are focused on one student nsteadof an entiregraduatecohort.They do nottransmita commoncanon.

Thequestions henarise:howdoshared,requiredgraduatereading ists codifythe

canon,and what do they symbolize or the

largerscholarlycommunity? heanswer s

that these lists embody the canon's twofunctions: curatorial and normative

(Altieri).The literaryacademic communityis charged with assigning value to certain

works and then transmitting these assess-

ments to "succeeding generations of sub-

jects," ensuring that its academic descen-








dantsrecognizedesignatedworksoflitera-ture (Herrnstein Smith 32). This rolereflectsthe originalmeaningof the canon,

whichwas "thechoice of books nour each-ing institutions."Bloom15).

Underlying his selectionprocessis thesharedassumption hat choices reflect lit-

eraryworth.Although "literaryvalue" is

contingent ndproblematic,nddespite hefact that other factorsalso affectcanon or-

mation,this perception s key. Selections,it is assumed, are based on evaluations.Assessments are of two kinds:formaland

informal(HerrnsteinSmith).Informalap-praisals ncludeorallyexpressed opinionsand coursesyllabi; ormalones encompassliteraryprizes,scholarlyattention hroughpublications,and inclusion in literaryan-

thologies.Contributingo thecomplexity fthe process is the fact that these assess-ments both reflect and establish literaryworth:"what recommonly akento be the

signsof literaryvalueare,in effect,also its

springs"34).Theconceptof"literaryalue"s elusive,andnouniversally-acceptedriteria xistbywhichto definea "masterpiece"eservingofimmortality.mportantttributes f suchaworkcan be identifiedbut notquantified.They includeawork'saesthetic attainment

(Hume), its ability to provide modelsorideals(Cook),and tsinnovationntermsofliterary istory(Bloom).Other mportant

aspectsare historical and

politicalsignifi-cance,communication f tradition,nsightinto he humancondition, elationotheory,and culturalcontent. Scholars'valuejudg-ments are alsoaffected,consciouslyornot,bycertainnonliteraryactorswhose impactis difficultto measure. Among the mostnotablearepolitics (Guillory), raditionora reactionagainst t (Gates),historicalandculturalcontexts (Lauter,Canons), he de-

mographicsofevaluators Lauter,"Race"),and the desire for inclusion of minorityvoices (Palumbo-Liu). Still another

unquantifiableactor s inertia.In Hispanic studies, research on the

canonhas focusednot on literaryvalueperse but on assessments that establishvalue.

Studies havebeen conductedprimarily y

thosewho work n the newer iterary ealmsof the nineteenthand twentiethcenturiesand literatureby women. Interest in this

areahas soaredsince the late 1980s:a 1996literature earchyielded52journal rticles,six bookchapters,andthree books on the

subjectof the SpanishandSpanishAmeri-can literary canon (MLABibliography).Sources of information hat have been uti-lizedbyscholars ncludepollsofprofessors'curricularelections (Holt),analysisof thecontents of literaryanthologiesand manu-als (Brown, Mullen "Emergence,"

Mancing,Perez),reviewsof trends n schol-arlypublications Brown,Debicki, Perez),and nvestigation f critical eception nthe

past (Gies, Gold). A recent study of thecanonwith relation o the changingcharac-teristics as well as the contents of antholo-

gies appearednHispania Mujica).At eastone scholarhasbegunto examinethe evo-lution ofSpanishAmericaniterary tudiesas a discipline(Mullen"Historiography");

however this field andthe attendant ssueof canon formationhave not yet been ex-

plored to the extent that they have in

(North)American tudies (Shumway).Twohypotheseslinkingmeasurableas-

sessments of value with canonformationhave been advanced. One argues thatchoices ofworksare influencedbythe cur-rentsofscholarlydialoguenafield,andtheotherpositsthat he canon s shapedbythe

availabilityf texts

(Harris).Our

findingsindicatethat neither of these is the sole oreventheprimary eterminantf thepresentHispanic iterarycanon.The presumptionthatscholarlyactivitys amajormpetus orreevaluation of the canon has not beenconfirmedbyapositivecorrelation etweencurrentscholarshipandreading ist selec-tions (BrownandJohnson).Similarly,he

hypothesis that for Hispanic poetry thecanon s determinedargelybypresencein

literary anthologies (Mancing)is neithersupportednorrefutedbyour results nthis

study.Although hemajority four canoni-cal reading ist poets areon 40 percentormore of the 100 anthologiessurveyed byMancing,anumberofmajordiscrepanciesbetweenthis canonandthe 1986anthology








canon also exist, indicating hatgraduatereading lists are influenced by othersourcesalso.

Less well understood thanthe factorsinfluencing literary selections is the dy-namicby which individualappraisalsde-

velopintowidespreadagreement hatcer-tain works fulfill agreed-upon"valuablefunctions" at a given time (HerrnsteinSmith). This evolutionaryprocess is asmuch a sociologicalas a criticalenterprise.Presumably t involvesnegotiatingagree-ment amongholders of differentviews, in

microcosm and in macrocosm: at a locallevel (amongmembers of a departmentalfaculty),andat acosmopolitanevel (amongmembersofacommondisciplineat arangeof institutions). t is probable hat the onlywaytoapprehendhe mechanismsofcanonformation s to studya specificmarkerofvalueovertime, to see whatchanges andwhat remains he same. This typeof inves-

tigation s in development or the graduate

readingists

analyzedhere.

Thedebateoverthe canonand ts forma-tion must be "asmuchpedagogicalas it istheoretical"Alberti ii).Ourenunciation fthe present canon raises issues of both

types.Intheoreticalerms, he most evidentand serious implicationof our findings isthatwemaynot have commonconceptionsof literaryvalue.Pedagogical mplicationsinvolve epercussionshatresult roma lackof consensus. By abdicatingall but a re-

duced curatorial ole, andby carryingoutan idiosyncraticnormativerole, our smallcanonmaynot serve thegraduate tudentswhose reading ists we havecompared.

These discoveriesmay challengeus toreexaminethe foundationof commondis-course in Spanishand SpanishAmerican

literary tudies.One leaderwith a half cen-

turyofexperience nourprofession,he lateRobert G. Mead, Jr., urged us to do pre-

ciselythis. Ina letter to the authors ollow-ingthepublication f ourpilotstudyon thetwentiethcenturynovel,1ProfessorMead

prescientlygeneralizedourfindingsto allof Spanishliterature."Atpresent,"he as-

serted,"there s too much 'freewheeling,'personal bias in choice of texts ... in short,

unnecessary onfusion stoclearstandardsandgoals in the teachingof literature. t isno wonder, then, that a recognizedcanon

has notyet emergedin regard o literaturein Spanish..."(Mead).

Whetherstemming romunchecked n-dividualautonomy,differences of critical

opinionor some other cause, the fact re-mains that at this time there is very little

agreementon the subjectofrequired ead-

ing inour field.Knowing his,we are facedwith choices. The theoreticaldecision wemustconfront s the questionof whetheror

not we wanta fixedcanon,andwhatvaluesshouldshapeits formationfthe answer saffirmative.Pedagogicalconcerns involvethe issue of suggestingstandards orpost-graduateeducationnSpanishandSpanishAmerican iterature. f we choose to adopta shared canon,what authorities shouldoversee its construction?By what criteriashould selections be made? And what

type-monolithic, "core" with choices,worksand/or authors-should it be? Forourselvesandoursuccessors,discussionofourcommoncanonbelongsatthetopofour

agendaas we approachhetwenty-firsten-

tury.2

* NOTES

1Personalommunicationo authors,Storrs,CT,

May25, 1995.2We hankProfessorRichardA. Zipser,Chairof

theDepartment

fForeignLanguages

ndLiteraturesof the UniversityofDelaware, or his supportof this

project,and AlexanderA. Brownfor preparing he

figures.

M WORKSCITED

Alberti,John,ed. TheCanon n the Classroom:The

PedagogicalImplicationsof Canon Revision in

American iterature.ewYork:Garland,995.Altieri,Charles.Canons ndConsequences:eflections

on the Ethical Force of Imaginative Ideals.Evanston: orthwesternP,1990.

Bloom,Harold.TheWesternanon: heBooks ndSchooloftheAges.New York:HarcourtBraceand

Company,1994.

Brown,oanL."WomennSpanish iterary istory:Past,Present ndFuture." evistaCanadienseeEstudiosHispdnicos 4.3(1990),553-60.

Brown,oanL.,andCristaohnson."The ontempo-raryHispanic ovel: sThere Canon?"ispania








78.2(1995),252-62.

Cook,Albert.Canonsand Wisdoms. hiladelphia:UofPennsylvaniaP, 1993.

Debicki,AndrewP. "Contributionsy Hispanists n

the United Statesto the Studyof TwentiethCen-turySpanishLiterature, 950-89."Hispania75.4

(1990),917-29.

Gates,HenryLouisJr.LooseCanons.New YorkandOxford:OxfordUP,1991.

Gies,DavidT. "Lost ewelsandAbsentWomen:To-

warda Historyof the Theatre n Nineteenth-Cen-

turySpain."CriticaHispdnica17.1(1995),81-93.

Gold, Hazel. "Back to the Future:Criticism, the

Canon,andthe Nineteenth-Century ovel."His-

panicReview58.2 (1990),179-204.

Gourman, ack. TheGourmanReport:A Ratingof

Graduate ndProfessional rogramsn Americanand InternationalUniversities.LosAngeles:Na-tionalEducationStandardsGroup,5thed., 1989,69.

Guillory, ohn.CulturalCapital:TheProblem fLit-

eraryCanonFormation.Chicago:U ofChicagoP,1993.

Harris,WendellV."Canonicity."MLA 05.1(1991),110-21.

Holt,MarionP.'"Twentieth-CenturypanishTheaterand the Canon(s)." Anales de la Literatura

EspauolaContempordnea/AnnalsfContemporary

SpanishLiterature 7.1-2 (1992)47-54.Hume,David."Of he Standard fTaste."Of heStan-dardofTasteand OtherEssays.Ed.JohnW. Lenz.

Indianapolis: obbs-Merrill,965,3-24.

Lauter,Paul.Canons nd Contexts. ewYork:Oxford

UP,1991.

-. "Race nd Gender nthe Shapingofthe American

LiteraryCanon:ACaseStudy rom heTwenties."

Rpt.in FeministLiteraryTheory:A Reader.Ed.

Mary Eagleton. Oxford and Cambridge,MA:

Blackwell,1986,39-45.

Mancing,Howard."AConsensus Canonof SpanishPoetry."Hispania69.1(1986)53-81.

MLAInternationalBibliography,Vol.2, European,Asian, Africanand LatinAmericanLiteratures.New York: Modern LanguageAssociation of

America,August1996,online(WinSPRIS.0).Mujica,Barbara."Teaching iterature:Canon,Con-

troversy,andthe LiteraryAnthology."Hispania80.2 (1997):203-15.

Mullen,Edward . "Early panish-Americanistori-

ography:A Note on CanonFormation." omanceNotes36.3 (1996)227-35.

-. 'The Emergenceof Afro-Hispanicoetry:SomeNoteson CanonFormation."ispanicReview 6.4

(1988)435-53.

Palumbo-Liu, avid.TheEthnicCanon:Histories,n-stitutions and Interventions.Minneapolis:U ofMinnesotaP, 1995.

Peterson'sGuideo Graduate rogramsn theHumani-ties and Social Sciences, 1991, Book Two.Princeton: eterson'sGuides,25thed., 1990,589-620.

Perez,Janet,"Introduction:tatusof WomenWritersin Spain."Contemporary omenWritersfSpain.

Boston:Twayne,1988,1-7.Shumway,David R. CreatingAmericanCivilization:

A GenealogyfAmerican iteratures an Academic

Discipline.Minneapolis:U of MinnesotaP, 1994.

Smith,BarbaraHerrnstein, Contingenciesf Value."

Rpt.inCanons.Ed. RobertVonHallberg.Chicago:U of ChicagoP, 1983,5-39.








Table 1. Representation of Spanish Authors On the 56 Reading Lists,Grouped by Genre (1100-1991)

A. AUTHORSOFNOVELS

Author Century Gender Number Percent

Cervantes,Miguelde 17th M 56 100

Gald6s,Benito Perez 19th M 56 100

Cela,CamiloJose 20th M 55 98

Unamuno,Miguelde 20th M 53 95Clarin LeopoldoAlas) 19th M 52 93

Quevedo,Francisco 17th M 51 91

Baroja,Pio 20th M 48 86

Martin-Santos, uis 20th M 45 80Ercilla,Alonsode 16th M 43 77PardoBazan,Emilia 19th F 43 77

Valle-Inclan,Ram6ndel 20th M 43 77

Goytisolo,Juan 20th M 42 75

Valera,Juan 19th M 42 75

Montemayor, orgede 16th M 40 71

Aleman,Mateo 17th M 34 61

GraciAn, altasar 17th M 33 59

Rodriguezde Montalvo,Garcia 16th M 31 55

SanPedro,Diego de 15th M 30 54SAnchezFerlosio,Rafael 20th M 30 54

Azorin(JoseMartinezRuiz) 20th M 29 52

Delibes,Miguel 20th M 29 52

B. POETS


Ruiz,Juan 13th M 53 95

Becquer,GustavoAdolfo 19th M 52 93GarciaLorca,Federico 20th M 52 93

G6ngora,Luisde 16th M 52 93Luis de Le6n,Fray 16th M 52 93

Machado,Antonio 20th M 52 93

Berceo,Gonzalode 12th M 51 91

Espronceda, ose 19th M 51 91

Juande la Cruz,San 16th M 51 91

Manrique, orge 15th M 51 91

Vega,Garcilasode la 16th M 51 91

Jimenez,JuanRam6n 20th M 49 88

Quevedo,Franciscode 17th M 46 82

Cadalso,Jos6 18th M 45 80Guillkn, orge 20th M 44 79

Santillana,Marquisde 15th M 41 73

Aleixandre,Vicente 20th M 37 66Salinas,Pedro 20th M 36 64

Vega,Lopede 17th M 36 64Alberti,Rafael 20th M 35 63








Herrera,Fernandode 16th M 33 59

HernAndez,Miguel 20th M 31 55

Cernuda,Luis 20th M 30 54

Castro,Rosaliade 19th F 29 52Mena,Juande 15th M 28 50

C. DRAMATISTS


Calder6nde la Barca,Pedro 17th M 55 98

Rojas,Fernandode 16th M 55 98

Vega,Lopede 17th M 55 98Tirso de Molina 17th M 54 96

GarciaLorca,Federico 20th M 53 95Zorilla, ose 19th M 50 89

Valle-Inclan,Ram6ndel 20th M 49 88

Rivas,Duquede 19th M 47 84

Alarc6n,JuanRuizde 17th M 46 82BueroVallejo,Antonio 20th M 44 79

Moratin,Leandro 19th M 43 77


Encina,Juandel 16th M 33 59

Rueda,Lopede 16th M 33 59

Benavente,Jacinto 20th M 31 55Sastre,Alfonso 20th M 31 55

D. AUTHORSOF SHORTFICTION


Manuel,Juan 14th M 51 91


Quevedo,Franciscode 17th M 34 61

E. AUTHORSOF NONFICTION


Larra,Mariano ose de 19th M 52 93

Ortegay Gasset,Jose 20th M 49 88Teresa deAvila,Santa 16th F 41 73Alfonso el Sabio 13th M 34 61

Feijoo,Benito 18th M 34 61Azorin(JoseMartinezRuiz) 20th M 33 59

Unamuno,Miguelde 20th M 31 55

Table 2. Representation of Spanish American Authors on the 56 Reading Lists,

Grouped by Genre (1100-1991)

A. AUTHORS OF NOVELS


Garcia Mirquez, Gabriel 20th M 54 96








Carpentier,Alejo 20th M 50 89

Fuentes,Carlos 20th M 50 89

VargasLlosa,Mario 20th M 48 86

Rulfo,Juan 20th M 47 84Azuela,Mariano 20th M 45 80

Gallegos,R6mulo 20th M 45 80

Asturias,MiguelAngel 20th M 43 77

Gifiraldes,Ricardo 20th M 43 77

Cortizar,Julio 20th M 41 73

Echeverria,Esteban 19th M 41 73FernAndez e Lizardi, ose 19th M 41 73

Isaacs,Jorge 19th M 40 71

Rivera, ose 20th M 40 71

Puig,Manuel 20th M 32 57Arguedas,Jose Maria 20th M 31 55Cabrera nfante,Guillermo 20th M 29 52

B. POETS


Dario,Ruben 19th M 55 98

Neruda,Pablo 20th M 55 98

Vallejo,Cesar 20th M 53 95

Marti, ose19th M 49 88

HernAndez,ose 19th M 46 82

Paz,Octavio 20th M 46 82

Huidobro,Vicente 20th M 44 79

Mistral,Gabriela 20th F 44 79

JuanaIne'sde la Cruz,Sor 17th F 43 77

Guillkn,NicolAs 20th M 40 71

Lugones,Leopoldo 20th M 40 71

Silva,JoseAsunci6n 19th M 37 66

Heredia,Jose Maria 19th M 36 64

Borges, JorgeLuis 20th M 33 59

Casal,JuliAn el 19th M 31 55

Parra,Nicanor 20th M 31 55GutierrezNAjera,Manuel 19th M 30 54

Olmedo,Jose 19th M 29 52

C. DRAMATISTS


Usigli, Rodolfo 20th M 36 64

Sinchez, Florencio 20th M 31 55

Juana In~s de la Cruz, Sor 17th F 30 54

Marques, Rena 20th M 29 52








D. AUTHORSOFSHORTFICTION


Borges, JorgeLuis 20th M 53 95Quiroga,Horacio 20th M 45 80

Cortizar,Julio 20th M 38 68

Palma,Ricardo 19th M 33 59

Rulfo,Juan 20th M 30 54

E. AUTHORSOF NONFICTION

Author Century Gender Number PercentGarcilasode laVega,Inca 17th M 52 93

Sarmiento,DomingoFaustino 19th M 50 89Paz,Octavio 20th M 45 80

Rod6,Jos6 Enrique 20th M 43 77

JuanaIn6sde la Cruz,Sor 17th F 40 71

Col6n,Cristobal 16th M 37 66

Marti, os6 19th M 36 64

Cort6s,Hernan 16th M 34 61Diaz del Castillo,Bernal 17th M 33 59

Bello,Andr6s 19th M 32 57LasCasas,FrayBartolom6de 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

12thCENTURY: OETRY

Work Year Author Number PercentPoema demio Cid 1100 Anonymous 55 98

Milagrosdenuestra efiora 1190 Berceo 51 91

13th CENTURY: LLGENRES

Work Year Author Number PercentLibrode buenamor(poetry) 1283 Ruiz 53 95Auto de losReyesMagos(theatre) 1200 Anonymous 30 54

14thCENTURY: HORTFICTION

Work Year Author Number PercentEl CondeLucanor 1335 Manuel 50 89








15th CENTURY: LLGENRES

Work Year Author Number Percent

Coplasporla muertede mipadre 1440 Manrique 45 80(poetry)Cdrcelde amor(novel) 1492 SanPedro 29 52

16th CENTURY: OVEL


LazarillodeTormes 1554 Anonymous 56 100

La Araucana 1589 Ercilla 40 71

La Diana 1559 Montemayor 40 71Amadisde Gaula 1508 Montalvo 31 55

16th CENTURY:HEATRE


La Celestina 1502 Rojas 54 96

16th CENTURY: ONFICTION


Vida 1565 SantaTeresa 32 57

17th CENTURY: OVEL


Don Quijotede la Mancha 1605 Cervantes 56 100

ElBusc6n

1605 Quevedo 51 91

GuzmdndeAlfarache 1602 Alem~n 33 59El Critic6n 1651 Graciain 30 54

17th CENTURY:HEATRE


El burlador e Sevilla 1630 Tirso de Molina 54 96

La vida es suefio 1635 Calder6n 54 96

Fuenteovejuna 1613 Vega, Lopede 47 84

La verdad ospechosa 1634 Alarc6n 45 80

El caballerodeOlmedo 1620 Vega, Lopede 41 73Entremeses 1615 Cervantes 36 64

Elalcaldede Zalamea 1643 Calder6n 31 55

Elgranteatrodel mundo 1645 Calder6n 31 55

El medicode su honra 1635 Calder6n 31 55

Peribd*iezel comendador 1605 Vega, Lopede 29 52

de Ocafia








17th CENTURY: HORTFICTION


Novelasejemplares 1613 Cervantes 43 77Sueiios 1627 Quevedo 34 61

18th CENTURY: OETRY

Work Year Author Number PercentCartasmarruecas 1741 Cadalso 39 70

19thCENTURY: OVEL

Work Year Author Number PercentLaRegenta 1884 Clarin 47 84

Pepita imi"nez 1874 Valera 42 75Lospazosde Ulloa 1886 PardoBazan 40 71

Fortunata acinta 1887 Gald6s 37 66Misericordia 1879 Gald6s 31 55

19thCENTURY: OETRY

Work Year Author Number PercentEl estudiantedeSalamanca 1808 Espronceda 32 57Romanceroitano 1898 GarciaLorca 28 50

19th CENTURY: HEATRE

Work Year Author Number PercentDonJuan Tenorio 1844 Zorrilla 50 89Don Alvaro 1835 Rivas,Duquede 47 84El si delas ninfas 1805 Moratin 43 77


Work Year Author Number PercentArticulosde costumbres 1825 Larra 52 93

20th CENTURY: OVEL


Niebla 1914 Unamuno 47 84Tiempode silencio 1962 Martin-Santos 45 80El 4rbolde la ciencia 1911 Baroja 39 70La colmena 1951 Cela 39 70Lafamilia/PascualDuarte 1942 Cela 39 70San Manuelbueno,mdrtir 1933 Unamuno 32 57

ElJarama 1956 SAnchezFerlosio 29 52








Sefiasdeidentidad 1966 Goytisolo,J. 29 52TiranoBanderas 1926 Valle-Inclin 28 50

20thCENTURY: HEATRE

Work Year Author Number PercentLa casa deBernardaAlba 1946 GarciaLorca 40 71Lucesde Bohemia 1920 Valle-Inclan 39 70Bodas desangre 1933 GarciaLorca 37 66Los intereses reados 1907 Benavente 29 52

20thCENTURY: ONFICTION

Work Year Author Number PercentLa deshumanizacidnel arte 1925 Ortegay Gasset 33 59

Table 4. Representationof Spanish American Literatureon the 56 ReadingLists,Grouped by Centuryand Genre



Cartasderelaci6n 1519 Cortes 32 57

17thCENTURY: ONFICTION

Work Year Author Number PercentComentarios ealesde/incas 1609 Garcilaso, nca 39 70

Respuesta Sor Filotea 1691 Cruz,SorJuana 36 64Historiaverdadera/conquista 1632 Diaz del Castillo 33 59

19th CENTURY: OVEL

Work Year Author Number PercentEl matadero 1871 Echeverria 41 73Maria 1867 Isaacs 40 71Elperiquillo arniento 1816 Lizardi 37 66

19thCENTURY: OETRY


MartinFierro 1834 HernAndez 45 80Altazor 1893 Huidobro 30 54

19th CENTURY: HORTFICTION

Work Year Author Number PercentTradiciones eruanas 1872 Palma 30 54










Facundo 1845 Sarmiento 45 80

20thCENTURY: OVEL

Work Year Author Number PercentCienan-os e soledad 1967 GarciaMarquez 52 93PedroPdramo 1955 Rulfo 47 84La muertede ArtemioCruz 1962 Fuentes 46 82Losdeabajo 1916 Azuela 45 80

Don~a drbara 1929 Gallegos 44 79DonSegundoSombra 1926 Giiiraldes 43 77El sei'orPresidente 1946 Asturias 40 71La Vordgine 1924 Rivera 40 71

Rayuela 1963 Cortizar 40 71Lospasosperdidos 1953 Carpentier 38 68Los riosprofundos 1958 Arguedas 31 55Tres ristes igres 1967 Cabrera nfante 29 52

20th CENTURY:OETRY

Work Year Author Number PercentResidencia n la tierra 1904 Neruda 28 50

20thCENTURY:HEATRE

Work Year Author Number PercentElgesticulador 1937 Usigli 33 59

20thCENTURY:HORTFICTION

Work Year Author Number PercentFicciones 1944 Borges 50 89Cuentos e amor 1917 Quiroga 32 57


Work Year Author Number PercentAriel 1900 Rod6 42 75El laberintode la soledad 1950 Paz 40 71








1 1wiii i

II

iii!

At........

h U t l r 1 4 1 1 . h 1 7 1 1 - - V o ? 0 V I I t h

Figure 1. RepresentationfSpanishauthorsonthe 56graduate eading istsbycentury.Authorswho have

publishedin

multiplegenresare entered

onlyin theirmost

prolificgenre.Thirty-nine amesappearon 75percentormore of the lists, and24 appearon 50

to 75 percent.

ii&,m i-

i~'i

T-....

W i ai

Figure 2. Representation fSpanishworksof literatureon the 56graduatereading ists

by century.Twenty-twoitlesappearon 75percentormore of the lists, and33 appearon

50to 75 percent.








40

ii I

i::ill

MY

..........

Figure3.

RepresentationfSpanish

Americanauthorsonthe 56graduatereading

ists

by century.Authorswho havepublished nmultiplegenresareenteredonly ntheir most

prolificgenre.Twenty-fouramesappearon75percentor moreofthelists,and26appearon 50 to 75 percent.

' i

IM. .. .

Figure 4. Representation f SpanishAmericanworks of literatureon the 56 graduatereading istsbycentury.Tentitlesappearon75percentormoreofthelists,and19appearon 50to 75percent.

Documents

Canon in Spanish Spanish American Literatura