The legendary literary rivalry between Góngora and Quevedo over the relative merits of their respective writing styles of Culteranismo and Conceptismo was pivotal in the Spanish literature era of Baroque. Whilst Góngora’s influence can be seen in poets such as Dámaso Alonso and Lorca in the Generation of ‘27, his influence eventually spread far and wide in both Latin America and Spain. As he was hailed “the poet’s poet”, it seemed that Quevedo’s work was slighted by receiving less critical acclaim. Perhaps this was due to the transparency of his satire, in sharp contrast to Góngora’s convoluted descriptive language, which is potentially a more recognised characteristic of developed literature. The simplest way to differentiate between the two styles is to explain that Conceptismo revolved around the substance of the poem, whilst Culteranismo was conducive to sensory imagery. Both modes of expression were definitive concepts of the baroque era and fundamental in dichotomising it from the Renaissance. Furthermore, it is an indisputable statement to regard Góngora and Quevedo as respective “founding fathers” of these artistic movements. From the beginnings of their famous duel of aesthetics in Valladolid, it has resulted in revered and influential literature laden with ferocious insults from both parties, representing a key aspect of the Golden Age.
Surprisingly for how it is now regarded, Góngora’s poetry did not achieve its peak of recognition until the early twentieth century, likely because of the stark difference in the eras after the seventeenth century, such as Classicism. On the tricentennial of his death in 1927, a conscious effort was made to cause a resurgence of Baroque literature. Góngora was never published in his lifetime and when his works were published shortly after his death, they were divided up into two categories of early and late, in which his early poems were classed as very simplistic, whilst his later poems were more complex. This feature is prevalent through much of Góngora’s work, in fact his initial attempts at plays, such as ‘Las firmezas de Isabela’, were unsuccessful because the dialogue was too complicated for the audience to follow. A well-known expression to describe him is “Prince of Light, Prince of Darkness”, highlighting the disconnect many saw in his two styles of writing. However, Dámaso Alonso of the Generation of ’27 argued that Góngora’s later complexities were just expanding upon devices used in his earlier poems, and actually, the intelligibility that many saw was not as clear cut as they presumed. It is possible that the esoteric nature of his writing made its message sometimes incomprehensible for the masses. “Soledades” 1613 carried this style to such great heights that Gongoronismo entered the vernacular for his obscure mythological allusions and neologisms amongst other morphological techniques. It seems that the epistemological differences between seventeenth and twentieth century Spain are key in describing why there was such polemic when this work was first circulated in contrast to Alonso’s views. Both "Fabula de Folifemo y Galatea" and “Soledades” evoked a strong emotional reaction from Góngora’s contemporaries. It was more than just envy or personal rivalry, but a defiance against creating these poetic traditions and particular multiplicity of language. The principal theme of any criticism of these two works was the obscure labyrinth in both the language and content.
“Soledades” also provides a paradox of what was expected in that era, as increased focus is placed on naturalistic imagery rather than the artificiality of the court. The peasants are the ones who possess the most intellect and integrity, not the aristocracy. Using the most ostentatious vocabulary, he details an elementary lifestyle. This is perhaps trying to create a didactic essence to the poetry, which can also be reflected in the narrative cohesion of the poem consisting of four planned parts, unfortunately with only the first and part of the second completed. The first poem expresses the notion that in art, mortals can become immortal, as they live on through the works. The ubiquitous theme of loneliness is set, simultaneously contrasted, and supported by the evanescent nature of wandering pilgrims’ footprints in the sand. Nature is personified through the “empathy” of the waves to bring the pilgrim to shore. He is then utilised to broaden the readers’ vision of the surrounding atmosphere as we view the world through his innocently tinted lens. An aim of Góngora is to demonstrate to the reader the beauty of bucolic settings with an unspoiled purity. Following on from the wedding in this section, the second poem evolves the tone to one of pensiveness. The plot becomes more convoluted with the inclusion of more characters, and as difficult as it is to fully comprehend, compensation lies within unlocking Góngora’s self-described “mysterious quality”.
Another Góngoran masterpiece is “Fabula de Folifemo y Galatea". In particular, this poem is a testament to Góngora’s Latinisation of the Castilian language. He blurs the boundaries between poetic and everyday language with the introduction of hyperbaton, which had never been used to this extreme extent in the Spanish language. Just as was done in Latin, he positioned the verb at the end of each sentence, and further grammatic anomalies such as the separation of nouns from their adjectives. Due to his neologisms and highly coded metaphors, it took the work of Alonso in the twentieth century to begin the divulgement into this poem because of its difficulty to understand, even for a native speaker. Despite this, “Fibula de Folifemo y Galatea" is still illuminated by a magical beauty with obvious Renaissance inspirations partially obscured by the period and status of Baroque. Even though the ‘flowery’ language is characteristic of Culteranismo, Góngora still follows a rigorous structure of prosody, potentially delineating why his work is regarded as a template for modern Spanish literature. The radical contradiction between the tenderness of Polyphemus’ love for Galatea and the ugliness of his appearance is reminiscent of legendary mythology such as Homer’s ‘Odyssey’ and was a literary feature that was revitalised during the Renaissance era. On the whole, it is undeniable that Góngora was a literary innovator, whose influence can be seen massively as a great inspirer of the Generation of ’27, who are regarded as the best period for poetry since Góngora’s own time.
Quevedo is, in some ways, a direct contradiction to Góngora, but in others, they are two sides of the same coin. To use one word to sum up Quevedo’s writing style, it would inevitably be satirical. Twenty years junior to Góngora, their rivalry began in Valladolid, where they both settled to become patrons of the court. Quevedo subjected Góngora to a series of lampoons to do with accusations of homosexuality, gambling, and religious slurs. Arguably most famously, Quevedo dedicated an entire poem to mocking Góngora’s large nose. Characteristically of his Conceptismo style, the poem is replete with wit and irony, using scathing and intelligent humour to result in comedy. In the burlesque style, he focuses on one object for the course of the poem, using hyperbolic language to describe the nose. He paints Góngora as a caricature, creating a parody of the typical elements of storytelling, generally associated with Culteranismo, such as “once upon a time”. Though the two genres are disparate, one may say that these two writers drove each other to construct their works in the spirit of defence of their style. Although Conceptismo was developed as a reaction to Culteranismo, it built up a staunch form as the protector of ideas. Quevedo perfected this with the maximisation of content within a minimisation of form. He used techniques such as polysemy and ellipsis to convey his thoughts and riddle each sentence with a diverse set of language devices. This is also a revelation of Quevedo’s complex personality, as he is able to make such laconic phrases embody a great range of meaning.
“Los sueños” 1627 portrays a view on morality, with satirical puns used to point out human stupidity or hypocrisy. This can be used to explain Quevedo’s distaste for Góngora’s penchant for flattery, as “Los sueños” highlights flattery as one of many forms of deceit. He almost seems to be attacking the Culteranismo style, by implying that it uses words to mislead and conceal a truth. This is a common theme in much of his poetry which at some points has merely been dismissed as frivolous wit, instead of the intense wordplay that it is. Euphemisms and exaggeration are slandered for this reason, as they misrepresent honesty through their evasion of inevitable topics such as death. In “Los sueños” he points out how false naming can have this exact effect through characters such as the actor, and how scientific jargon is used in an effort to hide from the truth. He also studies etymology to evidence some of his satire, such as in “La cuna y la sepultura”, where he criticises philosophers by stating that the derivations of philosophy imply love of wisdom, rather than real possession of knowledge. Another subject of “Los sueños” is sinners of all kinds. It is expressed that idle talk is another misuse of words, similar to that of stupidity and mere boringness. The lesson in Quevedo’s work seems to be not to accept both literature and general facts at face value, because of the biases that can lie hidden, and to expect the unexpected, especially from those we presume should be respected.
The comedic value of Quevedo’s work can lessen the shock factor of some of his ideas, such sending writers to hell for what he deems as a butchering of literature in “Sueño del infierno”. His striking metaphors cultivated an epigrammatical style concerned with stripping off appearances to avail honesty. He was a revelation to the Baroque era, creating a new form of expression based upon elaborate puns. “Poderoso caballero es don Dinero” is a poem that shows Quevedo’s duality, an example being that “escudos” could be referring to a coin, a defensive shield, or a motif for nobility. This communicates many concepts with concise precision and demonstrates why Quevedo is seen as the one who deserves credit for developing Conceptismo. Perhaps, an advantage of this style of writing is its universality. “¡Ah de la vida!” strikes this popular tone, without the neologisms that complicate Culteranismo. Rather, the opening lines are based on colloquialisms that make it relevant to all readers. There is also a notable lack of imagery and description, as there are only two adjectives in the entire poem. This demonstrates the lifelessness that Quevedo is attempting to portray by not creating a vivid picture with words. It also furthers the compression of the language and shows Quevedo’s verbal ingenuity. This poem can fall under the umbrella of disillusion in its questioning of lines between life and death, and once again the difference between appearance and reality. He offers elegant philosophical depth because of his erudition, and whilst he is famously known for his satire, this is a significant facet of his talents as well.
In conclusion, contextualising the two writers does explain the enmity and animosity between them, however it is definitely possible to appreciate both forms of literature, despite their differences. Jointly, Quevedo and Góngora made up an important part of the Golden Age, both with remarkable literary works that are being studied centuries into the future. They cemented the Baroque style, with a taste for difficulty and individual subjectivity, after an undefined period following the Renaissance. While not all authors rigidly followed these classifications, they all tended to maintain a common denominator of the baroque element which is the dynamism of life and art. Respectively, Góngora and Quevedo defined Culteranismo and Conceptismo by elevating poetry to a level in which the reader must either decipher complex language or multiple hidden meanings. Their influence can be felt both in parallel movements outside Spain at the time, and some of the greatest subsequent Spanish literature. As can be seen, whilst there are obvious distinctions between the two techniques, they ultimately converge in their developed nature and innovative styles. Overall, both of these lexical artistic tastes are a foundation for Spanish literature today.
By Ishyka Ahluwalia
Comments