A foreigner has considerable difficulty in dealing with the literature of a country whose publications are little studied in Europe, and apparently little information can be gathered except from the actual writers. It is, therefore, necessary to begin with Dr. Ernesto Quesada, whose Reseñas y Criticas (Buenos Aires, 1893) is a mine of information.
He remarks in the Preface: "In Europe the creations of the mind are kept, polished, revised, accomplished, and completed for publication very slowly and with tender care: in America we look upon writing as a mere incident, and though we may as far as possible do it with the long study and the great love of which the poet spoke, we do not boast ourselves of it, or, perhaps, keep a record. Our life draws us to action and into such strange vicissitudes that it is not possible to see what to-morrow will bring." There is, then, an amateurish air about Argentine literature; it has at present more grace than strength. The writer has been before the public for more than thirty years. "Un Invierno en Russia," a book of travel, was published in 1888, and long before that he produced a youthful work on Juvenal and Persius—an unusual subject, for Latin Americans usually look upon the study of Latin and Greek as waste of time. Dr. Quesada has also written on political and ecclesiastical subjects. In the first-mentioned book of essays he deals with the poetry, history, and jurisprudence of his native land, as well as the Latin-American Congress, the Argentine Universities, the intellectual movement in Argentina, and a number of other subjects which are exactly those upon which a thoughtful observer of a foreign country desires information.
Cultured Argentines have devoted considerable attention to history; their nation has played a great part in the revolutionary wars; they are proud of it and demand chroniclers. Mention must first be made of Dean Funes, who lived in the days of the Revolution and whose "Ensayo de la Historia Civil del Paraguay, Buenos Ayres y Tucuman" is, to one who wants a comprehensive view of Argentine history, the most valuable work upon the subject. Upon the Revolution itself General Bartolome Mitre is the best authority, and D. F. Sarmiento has written well upon the troubled times of the mid-century, but in general English and French works deal with the history of modern Argentina quite as satisfactorily as do her own writers.
Undoubtedly it is in jurisprudence, particularly in International Law, that writers of this country have accomplished most original work. Prominent among her publicists is Carlos Calvo (1824-1893) who lived chiefly abroad in pursuit of his diplomatic career. In 1868 he published in Paris his "Derecho internacional teorico y practico de Europa y America," which was at once translated into French and took place as one of the highest modern authorities on the subject. Calvo observes: "I have called my work 'The International Law of Europe and America in Theory and Practice,' because I am endeavouring in it to make amends for the neglect of my predecessors and contemporaries who have almost entirely omitted to deal with the vast American continent, which nevertheless is growing daily in influence and power and marching side by side with the civilisation of Europe." The book is a minute analysis of the principles and practice of International Law and is specially valuable on account of its historical treatment and copious instances. Calvo also did good service to Argentine history by his collection of documents, but his eminence is in the field of International Law, and he is one of the very few Latin-American authors who have won a world-wide reputation.
While Calvo has surpassed all other South Americans in the importance of his contribution to the theory of International Law, Dr. Luis Maria Drago has done the same as regards the practice. Towards the close of 1902 England, Germany, and Italy had blockaded the coast of Venezuela on account of certain grievances. On December 29, 1902, Dr. Drago, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, despatched a note to the Argentine Minister in Washington. He maintained that no European State was entitled to intervene by force in the affairs of an American nation, still less to occupy its territory, in order to recover a debt due from its Government to the subjects of the intervening State, such intervention being an infringement of the sovereignty of the debtor State and of the principle of the equality of the sovereign States.[88] This doctrine, though never precisely stated, had been foreshadowed by Calvo. It has been pointed out[89] that the blockade of 1902 was not originally instituted on account of Venezuela's failure to pay debts, but to obtain redress for outrages inflicted upon the subjects of the blockading Powers, that Venezuela had refused the suggestion of arbitration, that Dr. Drago misunderstood the Venezuelan question, and that the Powers never intended permanently to occupy any part of Venezuela. Further, Mr. Hay, in his reply to Dr. Drago, said: "The President declared in his Message to Congress, December 3, 1901, that by the Munroe Doctrine 'we do not guarantee any State against punishment if it misconducts itself, provided that punishment does not take the form of the acquisition of territory by any non-American Power.'" Although the practice, against which the Drago Doctrine protests is liable to be abused, it would hardly be prudent on the part of European Powers nor conducive to progress in backward States, if the right of collecting debts were surrendered altogether; and this view was taken at the Hague Conference of 1907. It adopted the Drago Doctrine in a modified form, providing that force must not be used for the recovery of ordinary public debts originating in contracts, but the prohibition was not to apply if the debtor State refused or ignored an offer of arbitration, obstructed the process, or repudiated the decision. The resolution was adopted by thirty-nine votes. There were five abstentions, including Venezuela, which had no liking for the modifications. This tangible addition to the public law of the world, which was one of the few successes of the Conference, was a great personal triumph for Dr. Drago, who was then the Argentine Delegate to the Conference. There have been many other meritorious Argentine writers on legal subjects of all kinds, as well as commercial and economic, but this account of two great names must suffice.
After the splendid achievements of Argentina in jurisprudence, the work of her writers in more purely literary fields may appear to be eclipsed. But in the charming branch of essay-writing many good authors have appeared, and these were mostly trained in the excellent periodicals of a quarter of a century ago and upwards. Prominent among these is Martin Garcia Mérou, who will also claim notice as a poet. He is an author of long standing, having first appeared before the public in 1880 with a volume of poems which was published at Barcelona. As before remarked, it is a practice of many Argentine writers to publish in Paris or Madrid in preference to Buenos Aires, and indeed the influence of Spain upon Argentine literature is now quite as strong as that of England used to be upon the United States. It was at Madrid that Garcia published, in 1884, an acute critical work, "Estudios Literarios" and also "Impresiones," a book of travel, but since then he has reverted to Buenos Aires. One of his most spirited works appeared there in 1900, "El Brasil Intelectual," which is a rich storehouse of information about a country which is perhaps somewhat neglected by Argentines. Garcia has a deservedly high reputation among his countrymen, and has been warmly praised by Dr. Ernesto Quesada. Among this class of writer J. M. Gutierrez has done valuable editorial and critical work, and some have held that he is the most eminent man of letters, in the ordinary sense of the word, who has appeared in Argentina. M. Daireaux[90] remarks caustically: "He knew no joys but those of literature; he had all the traditional American curiosity, he made researches in the chronicles and caused them to live again, he re-discovered all the thoughts of the greatest men of the world, and illuminated them with the powerful rays of his gigantic intellect. But withal, as he was not a politician with influence at his disposal, nor a lawyer with a numerous group of clients around him, as he had nothing but a great soul, he occupied in society but a humble rank. I used to speak of him with men who appreciated him, and I never drew from them more than a shrug and this word of pity: 'What would you have? He is a literary man!' They did not even say a member of the literary profession; the profession did not exist, was not classed; he was only a literary man—not even, as they say in France, a man of letters." The writer adds that the profession is now recognised in Buenos Aires.
Still, in spite of his capacious intellect, Gutierrez can hardly be looked upon as occupying the first place among the men of letters of Argentina, because he produced little original work.
Prose fiction now fills a very prominent place in the literature of almost every nation, and Argentina is no exception to the rule, but it cannot be said that her writers possess any great distinction. Dr. Quesada considers that José Marmol, distinguished in other branches of literature, was the best of the early novelists. In 1851 he published a spirited romance named "Amalia," somewhat after the style of the elder Dumas. It can hardly be called historical, for the scene is laid in 1840 and the subject is the tyranny of Rosas, but the author declares that he wishes to describe for the benefit of future generations, the Argentine dictatorship, and that therefore he has treated in a historical manner actual living persons. The book was a success, but Marmol does not appear to have followed it up.
In 1884 Carlos Maria Ocantos published a juvenile work, "La Cruz de la Falta," which was recognised as showing considerable promise, and in 1888 appeared "Leon Saldivar," which was hailed as a national novel. This writer, who, like most Argentine authors, is a diplomatist by profession and a man of letters by temperament, does not follow the trend of Argentine fiction, which is towards historical romances. He is a realist, and "Leon Saldivar" is a powerful study of Argentine life, and particularly life at the capital. The more spiritual people of the city were beginning to complain of it as a noisy, overgrown place, devoted to money-grubbing, and indeed its poets and philosophers in general made haste to quit it for a more favourable atmosphere, and often did not even pay it the compliment of allowing it to publish their works. Ocantos strove to elicit the romance of Buenos Aires as Dickens found out the romance of London. He continued this vein with a still more powerful and sombre work, "Quilito," in 1891. The two writers here briefly noticed illustrate the imitative character of the Argentine novel—the first looks to Dumas, the second to Zola.
Many critics think that the strongest Argentine novel which has yet appeared is "La Gloria de Don Ramiro," published at Madrid in 1908. The author, Sr. Enrique Larreta, lays his plot in the times of Philip II. of Spain, and stirring scenes are described with great verve. The musings of a boy, when his intellect is expanding and his head full of the books he has last read, are always a tempting theme for romancers, and the following passage, in the spirit of "the days of our youth are the days of our glory," reflects the glow of boyish dreams:—