Moving to the first discurso, Voz del pueblo, Feijóo reiterates what is said in the prólogo; the necessity to displace antediluvian ideas. Alert to the fact that many people did not want to lose touch with their “familiar mental environment” it became mandatory to create a new mentality for debate to occur. Within this new way of thinking, Feijóo stated that knowledge could be split, “la del saber de salvación” and “la del saber natural”. In this way, knowledge of God is backed by “la revelación” but of the natural world “la demostración” is necessary. Therefore, knowledge of the tangible world needed to be calculated by “el peso, no por el número de las almas”. To all intents and purposes, Feijóo is beginning to create a new area of knowledge which today is “called Experimental Science”. Distinguishing between secular and religious knowledge allows for debate on previously unexamined topics to occur, without restrictions from the Catholic Church. The methodology of revelation complemented by demonstration, represents his engagement with Thomas Bacon’s empiricism, facts must be proven by observation and experimentation. In a world where more roads lead to “error, que la verdad”, it is important that empiricism is instated as the method of judging the validity of knowledge claims. By altering the way in which knowledge is judged, Feijóo is educating his fellow Spaniards on the manner in which to conduct valid debate. Not only this, he is aware that many people are unwilling to question, therefore “no dejan de ser ignorantes” . The language he uses here, is attempting to engage people in intellectual debate. The condescending tone, by referring to certain readers as ignorantes, encourages them to reply, to stand up for themselves, to no longer be ignorante. Similarly, intellectual debate would previously be confined to religious people and other established members of society, but Feijóo wrote for the masses. He appreciated that change needed to come from the bottom strata of society as well as the higher social classes. His writing style, in terms of the wider audience and the conversational manner, is another way in which he fathered intellectual debate and is something that shall be examined later in the essay.
Another new approach to debate, is the simplicity of the examples to consolidate knowledge claims. By using simple examples Feijóo is able to engage a wider strata of audience. For example, in Voz del pueblo, when discussing the complexity of knowledge and how often it is invalid, Feijóo gives the simple example of a square and how “solo de un modo” can a square be a square. In this way, the reader is able to realise the misconception that all believed knowledge is true, as it is easier to be wrong. Deconstructing misconceptions is one way to spur debate, giving simple and concise evidence to support claims, entices the reader to engage with and understand the issue. What’s more the vast quantity of examples given, be it of the natural world or the secular, expresses his point in a different ways, thus the reader has more chance of understanding the concept. Despite this, as mentioned, engagement in certain topics meant the work was deemed heretical. Not adhering to this mentality, he appreciates that heretics were only labelled so because of the Catholic Church and did not make one un ignorante. Much research was conducted abroad, and Feijóo was insightful to see the value of incorporating that research for the reason that “entre los herejes, hay y ha habido muchos sabios”. The desire to use material researched abroad was forward thinking and allowed the possibility for new intellectual debate to occur in matters not discussed within Spain. It exemplifies his new approach: judging knowledge by the validity and not by who is making the claim.
The notion of patriotism is another impediment that needs to be decimated prior to intellectual debate. Voz del pueblo can be seen as an outline of Feijóo’s new approach to debating. Amor de la Patria y pasión nacional, is the engagement in such debate. With observation and examples he is able to dissolve the archaic definition of patriotism. He recognised that patriotism in Spain was through a “voz vulgarizada”, which extended to many areas of knowledge, hindering debate in those areas. For instance, in history, he appreciates the necessity for objectivism, rather than writing historical episodes “como mejor les sueñan”. On the one hand, historical writings inherently engage with intellectual debate, however, when “las premisas son falsas” inductive reasoning is redundant, which for Feijóo means the knowledge is invalid. As history is such an esteemed area of knowledge, it is radical as well as innovative for Feijóo to question the validity of it. For him, patriotism entails bettering your country and when there are historians who “desfigurar las verdades”, he wants the public to know. In bringing this to light, it offers a new approach, as the reader is able to question what is historically recorded, thus encourages the acquisition of the truth, therefore engagement in debate. As an enlightened thinker, interested in debate, he understands that during a time of war propaganda can be advantageous. Despite this, he poses a rhetorical question “qué riesgo hay en decir la verdad”, when history is often written many years after the event. In displaying both sides of the arguments, it shows the reader the manner in which intellectual debate should be conducted. In addition, rhetorical questions directly address readers engaging them and stimulating debate. By treating the reader as an equal but at the same time shattering ideals that they may have held, Feijóo opens the door to the possibility of further thinking, thinking which leads to debate.
As mentioned, Feijóo’s conversational style throughout many of the discursos develop the idea of him as the father of intellectual debate. As well as inaugurating an innovative and understandable manner in which to relay information, he also shows his readers respect, offering them the truth, thus able to formulate an amicable, trusting relationship. However, the conversational style is not always reached by Feijóo throughout the discursos, but this can partly be attributed to the often scientific content. Las Cartas eruditas, written after Teatro crítico universal, as Lopez states “presentan rasgos más personales”, which shows his desire to perfect his conversational approach. For these reasons he was considered “el primer ensayista contemporáneo”. Furthermore, the lack of structure of the work as a whole “certainly emphasized his disregard for preconceptions”. Overall, the disorganised order and content of the discursos, displays a break from convention, mirroring the aim of the content and displays his need “to think unrestrictedly aloud”. More simple, is the fact the work is written “en el idioma Castellano”, whereas most intellectual writings would be conducted in Latin, meaning statistically, more people would be able to engage in intellectual debate. Looking at the manner in which Feijóo’s work was received, again confirms his position as the father of intellectual debate in Spain. For instance, there were works defending Feijóo like Dr. Martin Martinez “Carta defensiva”, as well as criticising “Antiteratro crítico”. Even critic Mayans y Siscar gave him the praise he deserved, professional doctors across the country sought his advice and after 1771 Spanish Universities even began to use his ideas as part of the curriculum. There was a vast amount of people engaging with Feijóo.
In essence, Feijóo allowed “la posibilidad de abrir nuevos horizontes al pensamiento” in Spain, particularly related to a new sphere of knowledge, “la Ciencia Natural” where “métodos inductivos”, rather than false patriotism were the prerequisites for valid knowledge. This distinction made it possible for intellectuals to thrive in debate upon topics that had never been discussed, without being deemed heretics, as well as posing a new way of judging knowledge. Additionally, he appealed to a wider range of the public, writing in Castilian but also in a logical, conversational and approachable way. In giving abundant, simple examples, the message was never nebulous. Furthermore, the use of rhetorical questions and direct address encourages subsequent replies from other intellectuals. For all these reasons, coupled by the number of works which respond to Feijóo’s and the amount of times his work was edited, completely testifies the notion that he fathered a new approach to intellectual debate in Spain. The ideas he discussed were not all his own, but the manner in which he brought them to the public eye was and shows Feijóo’s new approach to debate.
Bibliography
Copy of text:
“Teatro crítico universal” electronic copy:
Works cited:
Benito Jerónimo Feijóo
Ivy Lilian McClelland
Twayne Publishers inc. New York. 1969
Benito Feijóo, Medical Disenchanter of Spain
Richard G. Anderson
Oxford Journals
La educación en la España moderna (siglos xvi-xviii)
Volume 2 of Historia de la educación en España y América
Quintín Aldea Vaquero
Ediciones Morata 1993
El padre Feijóo y su siglo
A collection of essays with various authors
Universidad de Oviedo 1966
Feijóo y el descuido de España
Francisco Eguiagaray
El Padre Feijoo y la filosofía de la cultura de su época
Francisco Eguiagaray Bohicas
Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Políticos, 1964
Feijóo y su papel de desengañador de las españas
Juan López Marichal
Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1951), pp. 313-323
Published by: El Colegio De Mexico
La Ilustración en la Nueva España. Notas para su Estudio
Ernesto de la Torre Villar
Revista de Historia de América, No. 87 (Jan. - Jun., 1979), pp. 37-63
Pan American Institute of Geography and History
Early Enlightenment and the Spanish World
Phillip Deacon
Eighteenth-Century Studies 37.1 (2003)
Extended references of works commented upon in texts cited:
Tres hombres y un problema. Feijóo, Sarmiento y Jovellanos ante la educación moderna
Maria A. Galino Carrillo
Madrid CSIC 1953
La voluntad de estilo
Juan López Marichal
Barcelona: Seix Barral 1957
Background readng:
Los "errores comunes": Pero Mexía y el P. Feijóo
Juan Bautista Avalle-Arce
Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica, Vol. 10, No. 3/4 (Jul. - Dec., 1956), pp. 400-403
El Colegio De Mexico
Fontenelle in the Writings of Feijóo
Charles N. Staubach
Hispanic Review, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Jan., 1940), pp. 46-56
University of Pennsylvania Press
The Crisis of the Spanish Enlightenment: Capricho 43 and Goya's Second Portrait of Jovellanos
John Dowling
Eighteenth-Century Studies, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Spring, 1985), pp. 331-359
The Johns Hopkins University Press.
“Teatro crítico universal” (Feijóo 1739:VIII, XII, §I, 2)
“Benito Jerónimo Feijóo” (McClelland 1969:9)
“Teatro crítico universal” (Feijóo 1739:VIII, XII, §VII, 25)
“El padre Feijóo y la filosofía de la cultura de su época” (Eguiagaray 1964:91)
“Teatro crítico universal” (Feijóo 1726:I, I, §I, 2)
“Benito Jerónimo Feijóo” (McClelland 1969:10)
For a detailed discussion of the backwardness in thinking of 18th century Spain, essentially “la situación de inferioridad cultural”, it experienced see: “La educación en la España moderna (siglos xvi-xviii)” (Quintín 1993:726)
“La educación en la España moderna (siglos xvi-xviii)” (Quintín 1993:725)
Reference taken from “La educación en la España moderna (siglos xvi-xviii)” (Quintín 1993:725) in which the quote mentioned above in the essay is referring to “Tres hombres un problema. Feijóo, Sarmiento y Jovellanos ante la educación moderna” (Maria A. Galino Carrillo 1953:48)
“El padre Feijóo y su siglo” (Universidad de Oviedo 1966:367)
“Teatro crítico universal” (Feijóo 1726:Tomo Primero, Prólogo al lector)
“Benito Jerónimo Feijóo” (McClelland 1969:11)
“Teatro crítico universal” (Feijóo 1726:Tomo Primero, Prólogo al lector)
In the introductory paragraph of Voz del Pueblo, Feijóo talks about his desire to “expugnar los demás errores”. “Teatro crítico universal” (Feijóo 1726:I, I)
“Benito Jerónimo Feijóo” (McClelland 1969:11)
“El padre Feijóo y su siglo” (Universidad de Oviedo 1964:380)
“Teatro crítico universal” (Feijóo 1726:I, I, §2, 5)
“Benito Jerónimo Feijóo” (McClelland 1969:13)
Feijóo’s “detailed acquaintance” with Bacon’s empiricism is discussed briefly in “Early Enlightenment and the Spanish World” (Deacon 2003:133).
“Teatro crítico universal” (Feijóo 1726:I, I, §I, 4)
“Teatro crítico universal” (Feijóo 1726:III, X, §I, 1)
“Feijóo y su papel de desengañador de españa” (López 1951:320)
Referring to a quote from, “La educación en la España moderna (siglos xvi-xviii)” (Quintín 1993:728) where Quintín calls Feijóo “el primer ensayista contemporáneo”, she is referring to information from “La voluntad de estilo” (Marichal 1971:Capitulo VII).
“Benito Jerónimo Feijóo” (McClelland 1969:48)
“Teatro crítico universal” (Feijóo 1726: Tomo Primero, Prólogo al lector)
“Benito Feijóo, Medical Disenchanter of Spain” (Anderson:71)
“El padre Feijóo y la filosofía de la cultura de su época” (Eguiagaray 1964:101)
Discussion of the reception of Feijóo’s work, particularly in the medical sphere can be found in: “Benito Feijóo, Medical Disenchanter of Spain” (Anderson:78-79)
“La Ilustración en la Nueva España. Notas para su Estudio” (de la Torre Villar 1979:50)
“El padre Feijóo y su siglo” (Universidad de Oviedo 1964:387)
