Anda di halaman 1dari 54

Krauel, Ricardo. “Un caso en la frontera: Fortunata y Jacinta” Voces desde el silencio.

Heterologías genérico-sexuales en la narrativa española moderna (1875-1975). Madrid:


Ediciones Libertarias, 2001. 64-94.

Fortunata y Jacinta (1887) ocupa una interesante posición fronteriza dentro del espectro de
representaciones de deconstrucción genérico-sexual en la narrativa española moderna.
Por un lado, la novela se encuentra inserta en la tradición de textos en los que la
disconformidad sexo-genérica se convierte en un rasgo de caracterización "peyorativo" que es
utilizado para contribuir al cumplimiento de una determinada finalidad ideológica; por otro lado,
se distancia en ciertos casos de esta tradición para llevar a cabo una exploración y un tratamiento
más complejo de aquella disconformidad, distanciamiento que sugiere la presencia de un diálogo
o concurrencia con los discursos científicos de la época. Esta dualidad significativa se plasma en
la obra a través de la construcción de, fundamentalmente, cuatro personajes: Guillermina
Pacheco, doña Lupe "la de los Pavos", Mauricia la Dura y Maximiliano Rubín.
Hace ya bastante tiempo que la crítica ha venido poniendo de manifiesto que la novela
cuestiona la incontestable "santidad" que se atribuye a Guillermina Pacheco en el mundo
representado en el texto. Es posible que Galdós estuviera sinceramente convencido de la
superlativa virtud de Ernestina Manuel de Villena, figura en la que se inspiró para crear el
personaje de Guillermina.
La novela, en efecto, pone en entredicho la eficacia o la virtud de las acciones de la "santa"
al presentarlas supeditadas a la conservación del orden establecido, a la asunción y el
mantenimiento de las diferencias e injusticias sociales, al completo dominio y "disciplinación"
del inferior por parte del superior social; o sea, supeditas a valores que la propia obra pone en
crisis y refuta más o menos explícitamente.
Guillermina es una entusiasta confirmación del sistema patriarcal imperante en la sociedad
representada. La obra quiere asegurar y potenciar la transmisión de este mensaje subrayándolo
con una ilustración simbólica, y, de una manera sostenida, confiere una connotación de
masculinidad a las características y actos de la "virgen y fundadora".
Ya desde la presentación del personaje se resaltan sus "iniciativas varoniles", las cuales
vienen complementadas por "un carácter inflexible y un tesoro de dotes de mando y de facultades
de organización que ya quisieran para sí algunos de los hombres que dirigen los destinos del
mundo". Es decir, no sólo no se deja constancia de su masculinidad, sino que además se hace
notar que es "más hombre" que los propios hombres (de acuerdo, claro está, a los convencionales
patrones de masculinidad y feminidad implícitamente asumidos por el texto). Esta ponderación,
indudablemente, pone al lector sobre aviso respecto de una posible distancia irónica que la obra
esté tomando frente al personaje. Tal sospecha viene reforzada por la circunstancia de que ya se
habían adelantado ciertos indicios de que la "perfección" de la Pacheco no iba a ser objeto de una
lectura literal por parte de la propia novela: su "espíritu de sacrificio" había resultado relativizado
por comentarios de otros personajes. En el lector familiarizado con la novelista galdosiana
anterior, estas demostraciones de "santidad para la galería" despertarían sin duda, con el recuerdo
del tratamiento que habían recibido las ostentaciones de ascetismo estéril en obras como La
familia de León Roch, una inmediata suspicacia sobre la perspectiva desde la que la novela iba a
contemplar la pretendida excelsitud moral de Guillermina. Elaborando la idea de este seco
ascetismo, además, el narrador emplea frases en las que bien podría adivinarse una segunda
intención que relacionara la austera e insensible religiosidad de la "santa" con la falta de
feminidad y de atracción por individuos del sexo opuesto.
En todo caso, aquella primera vinculación explícita de Guillermina con la masculinidad
incorporaba una alusión comparativa con los hombres que ocupan una posición de poder político.
Dicha alusión no hace sino abrir una larga serie de referencias que, en el transcurso de la obra,
establecen una simbólica equivalencia de la Pacheco con altos representantes de las tres áreas de
poder más acusadamente institucionalizado, y, por supuesto, identificadas tradicionalmente de
forma casi necesaria o "natural" con la masculinidad: el poder político, el militar y el religioso
(Masculinidad, poder e institucionalización [los tres poderes se funden el de "patriarcado"] han
funcionado secularmente en nuestra cultura como una trinidad indisoluble, en que cada elemento
presupone a los otros y es presupuesto por ellos). Guillermina devendrá así una especie de
personificación de la autoridad, al revestirse sucesivamente de esas capas de alusiones que casi la
cristalizan como emblema, que le hacen adquirir algo de mito, algo de plasmación sensible y
didáctica (y, claro está, represiva) de una idea, de una propuesta de configuración o conservación
de un cierto modelo de las relaciones y poderes sociales.
Guillermina infunde los espacios domésticos, los espacios menores de las relaciones
privadas, de la ejecutoriedad y la asertividad de la autoridad pública. La novela convierte al
personaje en político, en militar y en clérigo.
La novela, sin embargo, no se limita a una mera enunciación de ese proteísmo o múltiple
proyección masculino-autoritaria de la personalidad de Guillermina, sino que deriva asimismo

2
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

tales correspondencias de la "locuacidad" de la propia acción novelesca. De esta manera, la


vemos arrogándose las prerrogativas de la más abusiva autoridad gubernativa con respecto a
Felisa y otras internas de las Micaelas. Igualmente, oficiará de "confesor" de Fortunata cuando
ésta se encuentra en su lecho de muerte, o ejercerá de rudo "diplomático" con Izquierdo para
pactar la transacción del "falso Pituso". En estos dos últimos casos, se evidenciará con toda
claridad cómo las iniciativas "caritativas" de la "santa" están plenamente supeditadas a la
servidumbre de los interese privados de la clase dominante; será más importante salvar el decoro
de la vulnerada relación conyugal de Juanito y Jacinta, o satisfacer los deseos de la familia Santa
Cruz de tener un heredero, que propugnar equitativamente los "derechos" de quienes no tienen el
poder social necesario para afirmarlos y sustantivarlos en la práctica.
No obstante, estas proyecciones de la autoridad patriarcal de Guillermina no tienen como
únicos destinatarios a los miembros de las clases sometidas, sino que se despliegan asimismo
respecto de los individuos de su propia clase; claro que no con cualquiera de estos individuos,
sino con aquellos que aun dentro de ese estrato dominante padecen a su vez algún otro tipo de
dominación, singularmente la de un sexo sobre otro.
Para que la masculinización de Guillermina pueda desarrollarse con plenitud es necesario
que se confronte a un sujeto en el cual se produzca al menos una de estas dos carencias: carencia
de poder socioeconómico o carencia de masculinidad. Así, podrá desplegarse ante Jacinta, para
quien, este sentido de la desigualdad entre sexos, que la obliga a padecer sin apenas posibilidad
de reacción las infidelidades de su esposo, tiene igualmente una connotación económica, pues el
dinero de que ella puede disponer lo recibe de su marido (o de los padres de éste).
La masculinidad de Guillermina resultará además subrayada en la obra mediante un
procedimiento de contigüidad o asociación simbólica, al que también puede atribuirse una
importante significación con respecto al mensaje ideológico del texto. Me refiero a la fusión que
repetidamente se produce en la imaginación de Fortunata de las figuras de Guillermina y
Mauricia, la cual, es asimismo presentada como poseedora de acusados rasgos masculinos. Con
el cruce de nombres y características entre las dos mujeres, la obra puede estar ofreciendo una
indicación al lector de que los valores que a cada una en realidad corresponden son inversamente
proporcionales a los que dominantemente se les atribuyen en el mundo representado y que hacen
de ellas, respectivamente, un "Ángel" y un "Demonio". Sobre esta inversión concurren además un
par de circunstancias que cualifican y avalan su fiabilidad como portadora de una genuina

3
voluntad significativa de la obra: por un lado, la inversión es concebida por Fortunata, el
personaje más profundamente validado por la estructura ideológica del texto; por otro, dicha
concepción se produce en momentos en que la esposa de Rubín, por hallarse bajo el influjo de
una intensa alteración emocional, se sustrae en buena medida de los cauces discursivos
"racionales" a que el orden burgués dominante quiere verla sometida; es decir, en momentos en
que se desenvuelven con bastante irrestricción las fuerzas de su intuición y su instinto, fuerzas
que en último término son las que epitomizan la celebración que la novela hace de la figura de
Fortunata. La mencionada inversión, por consiguiente, no sólo intensifica la connotación de
masculinidad aparejada a Guillermina, sino también la orientación negativa que, según hemos
visto, adquiere en ella de manera sostenida esa atribución de masculinidad.
Las líneas fundamentales sobre las que se construye la masculinidad de doña Lupe en el
texto ofrecen importantes semejanzas respecto de las que operan en el caso de Guillermina.
También en ella la masculinidad aparece como una propiedad concomitante al ejercicio de la
autoridad o, mejor, del autoritarismo. Serán así mismo frecuentes a propósito de ella las
referencias comparativas que la asimilan a instancias de los poderes institucionalizados, sobre
todo a miembros de la jerarquía eclesiástica.
No faltan tampoco los casos en los que los paralelismos se establecen con quienes poseen el
poder político, e, incluso, pareciera que el hecho de ser viuda de un antiguo miembro de la
Milicia Nacional la hubiera predispuesto a impregnarse del más áspero talante militar, talante del
que, sin embargo, y paradójicamente, carecía su esposo; la rudeza de tratamiento que ha de sufrir
su criada Papitos bien pudiera dar testimonio de esa impregnación.
El propio texto se hace eco del “parentesco espiritual” que vincula a doña Lupe y a
Guillermina. La masculinidad de las dos mujeres es similar en concepción, pero difiere en la
proyección. Entre una y otra media un notable escalón social, y ello da lugar a que la “santa” se
idealice, ante los ojos de la viuda de Jáuregui, como un modelo fervientemente admirado. En el
contexto de esa idealización, la masculinidad constituye un reclamo privilegiado.
Lógicamente, la inferior posición social de doña Lupe determina que su
masculinidad/autoritarismo tenga una repercusión social menor que en el caso de Guillermina, y,
por tanto, también una menor trascendencia ideológica. Lo que en Guillermina irradia desde la
clase dominante afectando a las capas inferiores de la sociedad, en doña Lupe queda
fundamentalmente circunscrito a su ámbito doméstico.

4
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

Desde el punto de vista de las implicaciones ideológicas, doña Lupe es una especie de
reproducción a pequeña escala de Guillermina Pacheco.
La “desfeminización” de doña Lupe aparece inscrita con evidentes señales en su propio
cuerpo. Tal desfeminización tiene, como es obvio, el indicio fundamental de la carencia de uno
de sus pechos. En virtud de una elemental asociación simbólica que vincula dinero y
masculinidad, la condición de usurera de doña Lupe se identifica con su vertiente masculina, y
elimina de en ella la suavidad y la sensibilidad que convencionalmente se hacen corresponder con
la feminidad, falta de sensibilidad que adquiere la ilustración palpable del seno postizo que
pretende disimular la pérdida del extirpado.
El pecho postizo, pues, se carga de sentido como representación sinecdótica de la
personalidad de la viuda, y remite asimismo al carácter vergonzante, oculto, que debe ser en lo
posible silenciado, de la dedicación de la usurera; miseria espiritual, artificialidad y masculinidad
son, en efecto, tres elementos indisociables en la tía de los Rubín.
Pero el desarrollo de la mitad usurero-masculina de doña Lupe, es crucial el influjo de
Torquemada.
Esa corriente de influencia se ve además reforzada por la intervención de doña Silvia, la
esposa del prestamista, a quien a su vez ha masculinizado la convivencia (la vida común
consagrada a la usura) con su marido; doña Lupe, Torquemada y doña Silvia acaban por
conformar así una suerte de trinidad de la avaricia y la transexualización.
La preocupación de doña Lupe por el dinero proporciona otra correspondencia entre su
masculinidad y la de Guillermina, quien también vive obsesionada por la “exacción” de fondos,
aunque éstos sean para el sufragio de obras de beneficencia.
Un nuevo punto de contacto entre los respectivos repertorios significativos con que la obra
construye la masculinidad de la “santa” y la viuda: una y otra asumen frente a Fortunata el rol
masculino de “Pigmalión”, tratando de “modelar” su personalidad para someterla a las pautas de
comportamiento que la ideología burguesa exige de la mujer de clase acomodada.
El proceso de “adiestramiento” culminará en el fracaso: la “Fortunata-pueblo” nunca es del
todo subyugada en la novela.
La vocación de dómine de doña Lupe no se para en distingos sobre el sexo masculino o
femenino de sus potenciales pupilos: bajo su férula estuvo, mientras vivió, su marido: bajo su
férula están Maxi y Papitos y también sus otros dos sobrinos mientras habitan en su casa. De

5
todas esas relaciones de autoridad y dominación, la más interesante es seguramente la que la
vincula con su sobrino Maxi, y ello porque la obra establece algo así como una correspondencia
dinámica e inversamente proporcional entre la masculinidad de tía y sobrino.
Las fases en que más se afirma la masculinidad de la viuda coinciden con aquéllas en que
más se retrae la de Maximiliano y viceversa, cuando la de éste se vigoriza, el comportamiento de
su tía se desplaza hacia patrones considerados como más típicamente femeninos.
Cuando Maxi empieza a trabar relación con Fortunata, doña Lupe ejerce con respecto a
aquél el rol de un padre severo y fiscalizador; la capacidad de respuesta y autoafirmación de
Maxi queda circunscrita exclusivamente el ámbito de sus fantasías, y cede inmediatamente y con
terror en el momento en que vislumbra la posibilidad inmediata de una confrontación directa con
ella.
De modo paulatino, sin embargo, Maxi conseguirá ir sobreponiéndose, siquiera sea
temporalmente, al respecto reverencial que le inspira su tía, hasta lograr dar cumplimiento a su
pretensión de contraer matrimonio con Fortunata. Este proceso de afirmación es subrayado con
alusiones al fortalecimiento y la consolidación de la “hombría” de Maxi. Es en esa fase cuando,
correlativamente, la “feminidad” de doña Lupe alcanza sus niveles más ostensibles: las
atenciones que dispensa a su sobrino adquieren un cariz abiertamente “maternal”, pródigo en
solicitud, con una suavidad de trato sin precedente en su comportamiento anterior. Tras
producirse la boda, la ficción de aquella pretendida “hombría” de Maxi se desvanece
rápidamente. La masculinidad de doña Lupe empezará, pues, a recuperar sus antiguos fueros,
hasta quedar definitivamente restablecida después del incidente de la pelea entre Maxi y Juanito,
ya que no en vano es tal incidente el que quizá señala más visiblemente el derrumbamiento
irreversible de la “masculinidad” del menor de los Rubín.
Tanto en Guillermina como en doña Lupe la atribución de características transgénicas
conlleva una ratificación de los estereotipos de la definición de los géneros. Tal atribución
adquiere una resonancia eminentemente negativa, en cuanto que sirve para resaltar la presencia
en esos personajes de unos valores (los valores más rígidamente intransigentes y conservadores
del patriarcado) que están en contradicción con las propuestas ideológicas que la obra
implícitamente postula y exalta.
Por lo que se refiere al aspecto concreto del tratamiento de la ambigüedad sexual, tanto en
Guillermina como en doña Lupe se produce una instrumentalización al servicio de una

6
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

significación ideológica que, en última instancia, no difiere sustancialmente del procedimiento de


caracterización común en este tipo de narrativas dualistas. Los dos personajes que al respecto de
esta cuestión ensanchan la riqueza significativa de la novela y la hacen avanzar por sendas menos
trilladas no son la “santa” y la viuda de Jáuregui, sino Mauricia la Dura y Maximiliano Rubín.
En Mauricia, la masculinidad encuentra también evidentes señales en los rasgos físicos.
Galdós ha dotado a su personaje de una serie de características que los estudios médicos
coetáneos o de las décadas subsiguientes tipificaron como propias de las “invertidas sexuales”.
En la primera conversación que entabla con Fortunata en las Micaelas, inmediatamente
después de que el narrador nos haya ofrecido su retrato, Mauricia se apresura a evocar con
delectación un par de “episodios” (sus peleas con Visitación y Matilde) en los que los rasgos
recién presentados se proyectan en una coherente traducción caracterológica; desde el momento
mismo en que al personaje le es conferido el uso de una voz, la emplea para impresionar al lector
con la casi jactanciosa ostentación de una abrumadora “virilidad”. Ese mismo sentido de
“virilidad” continuará ratificándose a lo largo de la novela en los repetidos accesos de violencia
que protagoniza y está de alguna manera engastado en su propio nombre con el apodo de “la
Dura”. Tanto Freud como otros investigadores vinculaban esa correlación de rasgos y
comportamientos “masculinos” en la mujer a la existencia de atracción erótica hacia sujetos del
mismo sexo, atracción de la que no hay ningún indicio en el personaje de Mauricia; sin embargo,
en la construcción de la noción de “inversión” femenina en la época, la orientación del deseo
sexual no constituía el criterio fundamental de definición, sino que se atendía principalmente a la
existencia de un desplazamiento general de la personalidad hacia la masculinidad.
La dualidad masculino-femenina de Mauricia funciona como trasunto de la ambivalencia
de su proyección moral al exterior, que la escinde, en una bipolaridad de maldad – según el juicio
del orden ideológico-social instituido en el mundo representado – y bondad – según el sustrato
ideológico subyacente en la construcción de la obra -, bipolaridad que en cierto sentido la
convierte en imagen simétrica de Guillermina Pacheco.
La masculinidad de Mauricia, en efecto, es un desafío a la autoridad y a la convención
social. Freud decía: “Nuestra cultura descansa totalmente en la coerción de los instintos. (…)
Aquellos individuos a quienes una constitución indomable impide incorporarse a esta represión
general de los instintos son considerados por la sociedad como ‘delincuentes’ y declarados fuera

7
de la ley. Mauricia es uno de estos individuos. En ella, la heterología genérico-sexual se
desarrolla en los linderos del trastorno mental y de la profanación de lo sagrado.
Mauricia concita sobre sí casi todos los elementos principales sobre los que se ha
construido la noción de sinrazón en las sociedades occidentales modernas. Su experiencia con la
institución del internamiento termina de perfilar esa correspondencia. El convento de las
Micaelas se configura poco menos que como el espacio prototípico que permite articular esa
amalgama heterogénea de la “sinrazón”. Allí, represión, locura, sacralizad-profanación y
homosexualidad parecen implicarse recíprocamente, generarse unas desde las otras. Por lo que
respecta a la homosexualidad, desde luego no abiertamente enunciada en la novela, Galdós
parece haberla dejado inscrita en cifra en la relación entre las reclusas “inseparables” Felisa y
Belén; en todo caso, en la institución abundan las mujeres “hombrunas”, con las implicaciones
que esta circunstancia debía tener (y más con referencia al entorno homosocial del espacio de un
convento) para la mentalidad de un escritor de finales del XIX, época en la que a la
“masculinidad” físico-caracterológica de las mujeres solía hacerse corresponder una orientación
homosexual de los deseos eróticos.
Por consiguiente, la masculinidad de la Dura está empapada de transgresión, de
marginalidad, de rebeldía. Pese a que esa masculinidad pueda servirle a la obra para aproximar
ocasionalmente al personaje a los dominios de la caricatura, no es incompatible con esa
validación ideológica de que el texto hace objeto a Mauricia (validación ideológica que no
implica renuncia por parte del propio texto a mantener su característica distancia de ambigüedad
e ironía frente al personaje). Al contrario, hay señales en la novela de que la masculinidad puede
formar parte de ese proyecto validatorio.
Love’s Coming of Age (1896) de Edward Carpenter argüía que las personas pertenecientes a
lo que se denominaba “el sexo intermedio” estaban especialmente dotadas, por la unión o
equilibrio de cualidades masculinas y femeninas que encarnaban, para desempeñar la función de
intérpretes y reconciliadores entre los miembros de uno y otro sexo.
En virtud de esa perspicacia, la Dura puede convertirse en un peculiar “padre espiritual”
para Fortunata, en una heterodoxa consejera que también ejerce a su modo con ella el rol de
Pigmalión, encauzándola, a pesar de la aparente tosquedad de sus procedimientos suasorios, por
la vía de la sinceridad y la naturalidad, en contraste con los afanes “domesticadores” o
desnaturalizantes de los demás “modeladores”, tan mediatizados por las exigencias de los

8
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

intereses ideológicos de la clase altoburguesa imperante. A la larga, Mauricia es el Pigmalión que


más éxito tiene en la novela. Su “educación” de Fortunata, dentro de la mejor tradición de la
mayéutica socrática, no consiste más que en hacerle aflorar aquello de bueno que ya lleva dentro.
Por otra parte, la obra continúa avalorando a la Dura con aquella cualidad de objeto
admirable. Mientras se enfrenta a pedradas con las monjas de las Micaleas, el narrador llama la
atención sobre este revelador contraste: “Su catadura les parecía horrible a las señoras monjas;
pero estaba bella en rigor de verdad”. El juicio de las monjas (y, por extensión, del orden socio-
ideológico instituido en el mundo representado) y el de la obra (por una vez, identificado con la
voz del narrador) son diametralmente opuestos; el aparentemente innecesario énfasis elimina
cualquier duda sobre cuál debe ser la opción interpretativa privilegiada por el lector: “en rigor de
verdad”. El grado máximo de “belleza” es alcanzado en uno de los momentos de más llamativa
rebelión contra la autoridad; masculinidad, oposición al statu quo y belleza están en Mauricia en
relación de solidaridad.
Mauricia nos ayuda a continuar entendiendo cuáles son los criterios que verdaderamente
fundan las jerarquías morales tan aparatosamente promulgadas en esa sociedad. Las puertas de
las Micaelas tienen que abrirse para dejarla salir, sin haberla subyugado, sin haberla
desmasculinizado, sin haberla “desembellecido”. No obstante, la ilusión no tardará en deshacerse:
cuando la amenaza a la disciplina social viene de tan abajo, de un individuo tan aislado en su
carencia de poder, el orden establecido no necesita el enfrentamiento directo para prevalecer; el
rebelde se consumirá por sí solo en su insignificancia, en su alienación. Así, a Mauricia, cuando
se le cierra la puerta de las Micaelas tras sus espaldas, no le queda más que otra puerta que
transitar: la de la muerte.
Su masculinidad no es ni mucho menos ajena a ese proceso de investidura de prestigio
ideológico, aunque irremediablemente haga resbalar en ocasiones al texto por la fácil pendiente
de la caricatura.
En Maxi se exacerban las correspondencias con los planteamientos desde los que se
“explican” las heterologías genérico-sexuales a partir de las primeras décadas de la segunda
mitad del siglo XIX.
Independientemente de que Galdós conociera o no de manera directa parte de aquella
producción científica coetánea, lo cierto es que Maxi aparece conformado casi como un caso

9
clínico modélico de acuerdo con las concepciones que por entonces comenzaban a consolidarse
en los círculos científicos.
Maxi es el hijo menor de una madre “casquivana” cuya impronta en él viene además
resaltada simbólicamente por la coincidencia en el nombre; el padre oscila en la relación con su
mujer entre los extremos de la violencia y la condescendencia claudicante, extremos que
tradicionalmente se han incluido en los viejos catálogos de condicionantes “ambientales” de la
homosexualidad.
Doña Lupe, que ocupa el lugar de aquélla después de que se produzca su muerte, coincide
plenamente con otro de tales estereotipos, el de la madre rigurosa, dominante y superprotectora.
Vernon Rosario ofrece la siguiente enumeración de rasgos que los médicos del siglo XIX
consideraban como denotativos de “feminidad” en el hombre: barba rala, complexión delicada,
pelo fino, constitución débil y genitales poco desarrollados. Y la novela nos presenta a Maxi así.
Desde un punto de vista caracterológico, también le son atribuidos en su presentación
inicial rasgos que frecuentemente se asociaban a la homosexualidad masculina, tales como una
radical timidez y el desarrollo de un complejo de inferioridad. Pero tal vez la aproximación
conceptualmente más interesante de Maxi a los esquemas desde los que se “racionalizaban” las
heterologías genérico-sexuales en la época en que se escribió la novela sea la imbricación de esa
heterología con la perturbación mental.
Prácticamente todos los autores que se acercaban a la homosexualidad (y a las demás
heterologías genérico-sexuales) desde una perspectiva teórica en aquella época la ponían en
contacto con la existencia de psicosis y neurosis en los individuos en cuestión. Se relacionaba a
menudo con la paranoia. Galdós bien podría contarse entre los que se dejaban guiar por la
opinión científica a la sazón casi incontestablemente establecida. Treinta años después de que se
compusiera Fortunata y Jacinta. Freud aún estaría confirmando y divulgando la conexión de la
paranoia con la homosexualidad.
En Maximiliano, la virilidad se convierte en un drama de autoexigencia. “Al principio no le
llamaban la atención las mujeres” (I: 460). Quizás estaban todavía demasiado recientes las
emociones sentidas al contemplar desde una furtiva soledad los ejercicios de los jóvenes cadetes,
a quienes sometía a una meticulosa “revista”:
veía desde la ventana de su tercer piso a los alumnos de Estado Mayor (…) y
no hay idea de la admiración que le causaban aquellos jóvenes, ni del

10
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

arrobamiento que le producía la franja azul en el pantalón, el ros, la levita con las
hojas de roble bordadas en el cuello, y la espada… ¡tan chicos algunos y ya con
espada! (…) Los sábados por la tarde, cuando os alumnos iban al ejercicio con su
fusil al hombro, Maximiliano se iba tras ellos para verles maniobrar, y la
fascinación de este espectáculo durábale hasta el lunes. En la clase misma, (…) se
ponía a jugar con la fantasía y a provocar y encender la ilusión. El resultado era un
completo éxtasis. (I: 457-58)

Maxi alcanza el “éxtasis” en la recreación de sus experiencias de “Voyeur”, excitado por el


“penetrante” recuerdo de esos jóvenes transmutados por sinécdoque en espada o en fusil. Un
poco más adelante, debe afanarse en reconducir sus aficiones de observador hacia el objeto a que
“naturalmente” se va a esperar que se dirijan; pero esto exige una disciplina. Dentro de un
laborioso proceso, avanzar una vez asumida la mudanza en el objeto de observación plantea
asimismo la necesidad de enfrentarse a esas voces que, desde no se sabe qué punto del fuero
interno, continúan protestando.
En la fantasía ha ido fermentando la posibilidad de una existencia alternativa, de una
virilidad esplendorosa; ahora, tras comenzar el trato con Fortunata, esa alternativa se perfila con
mucha más especificidad en la imaginación, y se proyecta en la concepción de muy concretas
escenificaciones de afirmación de voluntad frente a la autoridad de doña Lupe.
Pese a repetidos reveses, el proceso de afirmación continúa desarrollándose, y se va
vigorizando en su continuidad. Los pasos comienzan a sucederse en el ámbito de los positivo, de
lo real, y no ya sólo en las contiendas de la fantasía.
La novela empieza entonces a prodigar referencias a la consolidación de la “hombría” de
Maxi.
En pocas decenas de páginas, esa “hombría” ha pasado del vacío a la hipérbole; la curva
ascendente de la masculinidad del joven ha alcanzado su cenit. Como corolario de esta irresistible
ascensión, Maxi hace finalmente triunfar su voluntad sobre otras voluntades que antes se le
imponían: se casa con Fortunata.
Barthes decía que “sospechar un sexo es negarlo definitivamente”.
Al lector suspicaz, esos signos se le antojan indicios de una acumulación de tensión
narrativa, de la configuración de una suerte de “ironía dramática” cuyo desvelamiento más tarde

11
permita que se llenen retrospectivamente de razón. Esa hombría se está presentando más como
una construcción retórica, como una audacia del decir, que como una evidencia contrastada.
Y, en efecto, esa “hombría” cae, se derrumba aparatosamente nada más producirse la boda.
Si la virilidad de Maximiliano se había venido articulando como un drama de autoexigencia,
desde este momento adquirirá los visos de un espectáculo trágico-burlesco.
Este vertiginoso “despeñamiento” de la masculinidad de Maxi continúa su trayectoria
descendente hasta llegar, tanto simbólica como explícitamente a su punto mínimo en el episodio
de su pelea con Juanito. El pasaje, con su plástica evidencia de la superioridad física -- y social –
del amante sobre el marido está repleto de potencial significativo. Maxi es abrumadoramente
superado. Uno de los circunstantes que le ven derrotado es escogido por Galdós, en tanto que
personaje anónimo, para pronunciar ese “dictamen”: (Maxi) es marica” (I: 708). Ya es claro que
la hipérbole de la prevista afirmación de “hombría” no había sido más que un artificio retórico
que permitiría posteriormente magnificar la hipérbole de su carencia. (nota a pie: esta
convencional perspectiva que hace incompatible la “hombría” tanto con la falta de potencia
sexual como con la orientación homoerótica del deseo sexual masculino, es la implícitamente
asumida por la obra, no por quien la analiza. )De manera reveladora, mientras Maxi se encuentra
maltrecho y completamente ofuscado por su odio a Juanito tras la pelea, debilidad y ofuscación,
le aborda retiene una pareja de Orden Público.
En muy breves pinceladas, y de un modo que indudablemente llamaría la atención de
Foucault, el pasaje nos ha puesto delante un cuadro en que heterología genérico-sexual, locura y
criminalidad se superponen en compendio heterogéneo pero indisociable, perfectamente en
consonancia con la forma en que se ha elaborado el concepto de sinrazón en el mundo occidental
moderno.
Este episodio marca un punto de no retorno para la “masculinidad” de Maximiliano.
Periódicamente, los demás personajes seguirán corroborando más o menos explícitamente su
carencia. Freud desarrolló el argumento de que en los “invertidos u homosexuales” se produce
con frecuencia una canalización de los “instintos sexuales”, en ellos muy fuertemente reprimidos
por la moral cultural imperante en la civilización occidental moderan, hacia una “sublimación”
religiosa o cultural sustitutoria; en muchos casos, sin embargo, los esfuerzos inhibitorios agotan
la capacidad de resistencia psíquica del sujeto, dando como resultado la aparición de
psiconeurosis. Krafft-Ebing aludía concretamente a que en la paranoia religiosa y erótica el

12
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

instinto sexual “perverso” se manifiesta muy claramente, aunque a menudo exteriorizado bajo la
forma de un “amor platónico” o de una entusiasta admiración por una persona del sexo opuesto
que es agradable estéticamente. No es difícil reconocer coincidencias sustanciales entre las ideas
formuladas por estos psiquiatras y los avatares con que continúa la historia psíquico-sentimental
de Maxi, sobre todo en las fases en las que el trastorno mental, la obsesión-frustración erótica y la
exaltación religiosa se combinan en el joven como hilos de un mismo tejido. Estas fases terminan
de confirmar que la “masculinidad” de Maxi ha regresado, y sin posibilidad de recuperación, al
estadio de idealidad.
Al final de la novela, asistimos a un último amago de conquista por parte de nuestro
personaje de una masculinidad ya a todas luces inverosímil o inalcanzable. Ingenuamente
confiado en las imposibles promesas de Fortunata, asume el compromiso de matar a Aurora y
Juanito con el fin de poder llegar a ejercer sus nunca ejercitados “derechos” de esposo. Matar con
la pistola equivale en su caso a afirmar ante sí y ante Fortunata su masculinidad, a lograr
finalmente el estatuto de “hombre” respetado y con “potencia” para triunfar sobre su rival y
conservar (o mejor, “adquirir” por vez primera) a su propia mujer.
Al igual que ocurriera con Mauricia, la exploración que el texto emprende respecto a la
heterología genérico-sexual de Maxi ahonda en la perplejidad de la ambivalencia; si por un lado
no se priva de recrease en el subrayado de lo grotesco, por otro “rescata” de alguna manera esa
heterología al incorporarla a un personaje al que la propia obra atribuye uno de sus mayores
créditos en términos éticos, artísticos y de profundidad humana. Aunque desde nuestra
perspectiva actual la “medicalización” y la vecindad con la perturbación mental a que se ven
sometidas tales heterologías en estos personajes parezcan poco compatibles con una
consideración dignificadora de las mismas, en el contexto de la época en que se escribe la novela
evidencian una actitud de mayor interés y compromiso intelectual que se aparta del mero recurso
a una simplista utilización cómica o irónica del estereotipo. Fortunata y Jacinta es una obra que,
bajo una aparente asunción no problemática del orden burgués imperante, realiza un sutil
cuestionamiento de las relaciones antagónicas (relaciones siempre de poder) sobre las que se
fundamenta ese orden establecido, relaciones que oponen, por ejemplo, clase socioeconómica
dominante-dominada, razón-sinrazón, masculinidad-feminidad.
No se trata de un proceso carente de contradicción interna en ninguna de las esferas
indicadas: la novela no postula meridianamente una desarticulación del modelo social y de las

13
estructuras de poder instituidas en el mundo representado. Esta indefinición explica la posibilidad
de que ese tratamiento más complejo y sensitivo de la heterología genérico-sexual en Maxi y
Mauricia, además de estar sujeto a una cierta inconsistencia interna, coexista con el
planteamiento más plano, consabido y denigratorio desde el que se aborda la heterología de
Guillermina y doña Lupe. Tal duplicidad tiene asimismo un correlato en la tensión que acoge la
obra respecto de la elaboración verbal de las mencionadas heterologías: si de una parte se impone
una estricta reticencia enunciativa, de otra es posible identificar un deseo textual de multiplicar
los “indicios elocuentes” que permitan la configuración de un denso sistema de significación.

14
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

Copeland, Eva Maria. "Varones y degenerados: The Construction of Masculinity in


the Spanish Nineteenth-Century Social Hygiene Movement and in Three Novels by Benito
Pérez Galdós". Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: The Humanities and Social
Sciences: 65.4 (2004 Oct.), pp. 1389.

“Effeminate men and male ineffectualness: the problem of Maxi Rubín in Fortunata y
Jacinta”

(…) bodily-based metaphors were also frequently used by late nineteenth-century


politicians in their rhetoric about the nation to provide “the convenient fiction of an organic state
and a closely-knit, familied society” (Gold 73). (…) The body, as Gold suggests, was at the
center of a power struggle, since “who harnessed the body and disseminated its representations
could define and manipulate the (self-) images of an entire society” (74)
As a result of the increased focus in medicine on illness and the pathological, anything
which did not fall under the restrictive definition of “normal” was classified as “illness.”
In the nineteenth century, medicine was no longer just organized around the curing of
illness. It also started to define the “normal” over and against the “pathological” (Foucault, Birth
of the clinic 35). In other words, this knowledge also had to include a normative definition of the
“healthy man” (34).
Under this new conceptual framework, one of the tasks of the physician would be to
establish a definition of “normalcy”. (…) It also established a casual relationship between
normalcy and health: a person who was thought to be healthy was also thought to fall within the
boundaries of the normal.
The articulation of the normal / pathological binary in medicine grew to have social
significance as well. Within social discourse, the opposition of normalcy against the pathological
was seen in the redefinition of the working classes, criminals, ethnic minorities, prostitutes and
women as “abnormal” and thus medically classified as deviant (Aronna 14).
Within these hygienic health manuals a notable concern for “normal” male behavior and
especially “normal” sexual functioning is evident. Many of these hygienic manuals were written
by men specifically for men.
One goal of this discourse on masturbation was, of course, to define normative male
masculinity. (…) The body metaphor was co-opted by hygienists writing about the preservation
of the health of the body, especially the male body. The healthy bourgeois male body was seen as

15
the very embodiment of “manliness” or “lo varonil.” The construction of bourgeois manhood had
a political aim:
Manliness was invoked to safeguard the existing order against the perils of
modernity, which threatened the clear distinction between what was considered
normal and abnormal. Moreover, manliness symbolized the nation’s spiritual and
material vitality. It called for strength of body and mind, but not brute force… (Mosse
Nationalism and Sexuality 23)

A healthy body metaphorically equaled a healthy nation.


Within realist literature, and especially in Galdós’ works, excessive attention is often paid
to appearances. Realist literature is, by nature, an accumulation of details which threatens to
overwhelm the reader with minutiae. This is, of course, part of the strategy of realism: to
monopolize reality by confronting the reader with so many details that the novel’s reality seems
as real as the reader’s own. Jo Labanyi argues that
Realism problematizes the relationship between representation and reality, not – as in
modernism – by insisting on the difference between the two, but by blurring the boundary
between them while at the same time making it clear that representation in unreliable (Gender
and Modernization 208).
In Fortunata y Jacinta Galdós describes most of his characters with unwavering attention
to detail. As Gold and others have noted, Galdós’ use of physical description and especially
physical fragmentation is a sort of narrative shorthand – letting the body symbolize the inner
world of the characters (Gold 78-79). (…) A prominent example is doña Lupe in Fortunata y
Jacinta. Her missing breast can be read as symbolic of her masculinist tendencies: she supports
her (foster) family by working in the public sphere as a moneylender along with Torquemada.
(…) Maxi’s body is also symbolically significant, particularly when seen in the light of other
Galdosian characters that have extra-ordinary bodies as well.
Readings of his work from different theoretical perspectives, especially psychoanalytical,
cultural, gender, and queer theory, have illuminated the abundance of characters who defy gender
conventions. Many critics in particular have analyzed the social construction of gender of female
characters in many of Galdós’ novels. Many of Galdós’ heroines, such as Fortunata and Mauricia
la Dura in Fortunata y Jacinta transgress the narrow confines of femininity in nineteenth-century

16
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

Spain by controlling their bodies and desires against a patriarchal culture which demands that
femininity equal passivity and docility. Numerous male characters also defy established
definitions of culturally produced categories of sex and gender within Galdós’ novels.
“Ineffectual” characters such as Máximo Manso and Maximiliano Rubín challenge the
conventions of bourgeois hegemonic masculinity by presenting alternative versions of masculine
behavior. Focusing on these “ineffectual” males is a productive way to analyze the construction
of masculinity in nineteenth-century Spain. Jane Flax reminds us that critical attention should be
paid to construction of masculinity as well as femininity (Flax “Postmodernism and Gender
Relations” 629).
Maximiliano Rubín is a male character who exemplifies problematic masculinity in the
nineteenth century. The text illuminates incoherencies and cracks in the construction of
hegemonic masculinity through the character of Maximiliano Rubín. I argue that these
incoherencies can be read through the body of Maxi. (…) Maxi’s body is the complete opposite
of what the bourgeois masculine body and bourgeois masculinity should be. (…) In Fortunata y
Jacinta a weak body does equal a weak mind and soul – although not immoral nor degenerate.
Here Maxi’s ill body becomes a symbolic marker for ineffectual masculinity.
The representation of Maximiliano Rubín resembles that of the masturbator. (…) Maxi’s
insanity therefore is reflective of the change in how masturbation was viewed at the end of the
century, when medical and hygienic discourse and, especially the alienists, came to see sexual
“perversion” as a type of mental insanity or “locura moral”. Because under the general heading of
“masturbation” were subsumed other sexual “perversions,” including homosexuality, it is easy to
see how Maxi is representative of a profound questioning of bourgeois masculinity at the end of
the nineteenth century.
There are several ways in which the representations of Maxi Rubín’s body indirectly
incorporates the discourse on masturbation: it is seen through the physical description of Maxi’s
body, through his sexual impotence with Fortunata, and finally in the madness to which he
succumbs at the end of the novel.
Maxi suffers from various ailments which contribute to his physically weak state, including
incapacitating migraines. His overall appearance is that of a young boy, for although he is
twenty-five years old (at the time he meets fortunate), his appearance is such he does not look

17
older than twenty. His lack of mustache and his acne breakouts contribute to the overall
impression of adolescence instead of manhood.
In Fortunata y Jacinta, Galdós writes that Maxi is docile by nature, and his physical
deficiencies make this worse. Significantly, he also has trouble expressing himself.
Maxi’s inability to express himself with women is even worse, as when he meets Fortunata
for the first time and cannot find anything to say to her.
Maxi’s deficient masculinity/virility parallels his verbal inability; when he meets Fortunata,
he is unable to speak to her. When Olmedo tells bawdy tales as entertainment for the little group,
Maxi is too embarrassed and timid to tell him to stop. Later, at their second meeting, he gropes to
find words to express himself to her. His voice also fails him at a significant point in the novel –
the fight with Juanito.
The novel also makes reference to Maxi’s excessive care in dressing well as a sign of
sexual “perversion”.
Maxi’s odd physical body is described as if he were sutured together from spare parts. In
the text, the physical disparity between Fortunata and Maxi is underscored over and over.
Fortunate is much taller and stronger than Maxi. In fact, she is always represented as a physically
robust woman.
The physical contrast between weak, sickly Maxi and the robust and healthy Fortunata is
immense.
Maxi’s physical description is similar to those descriptions of male masturbators present in
the discourse on masturbation. Ricardo Krauel has noted that Maxi’s physical description is that
of the “sexually inverted:”
Por lo que respecta a las heterologías genérico-sexuales, e independientemente
de que Galdós conociera o no de manera directa aquella producción científica
coetánea, lo cierto es que Maxi aparece conformado casi como un clínico modélico
de acuerdo con las concepciones que por entonces comenzaban a consolidarse en los
círculos científicos (83).

Maxi seems to embody physically the traits of the sexual deviant and his masculinity is
always suspect in the text. The description of him in the beginning of the second part sets up for
the reader Maxi’s deficient masculinity, a masculinity which is tied to the representation of the

18
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

male body. The contemporary reader would have recognized that Maxi’s description is
exceedingly similar to that of the images of the terminal masturbator shown in the social hygiene
texts. However, the novel also shows how far Maxi falls short of embodying hegemonic
masculinity in his behavior.
The patriarch of the Santa Cruz family, don Baldomero, is one representative of hegemonic
masculinity in the novel. He epitomizes the bourgeois myth of the self-made man of nineteenth
century Spain. The patriarch of the Santa Cruz family is a retired businessman, at a time when
“…la clase media entraba de lleno en el ejercicio de sus funciones”. He provides financial
security for his family through his successful textile shop business, making him the supreme
example of the bourgeois provider and protector in the text. Juanito Santa Cruz, his son, is
representative of some aspects of bourgeois masculinity. He represents vigorous and undeniable
heterosexual prowess in his repeated conquests of Fortunata. However, he is also a “señorito” and
a “niño mimado” who is fully dependent on his parents for financial support.
Maxi’s ineffectualness and bodily weakness are reflected in his financial situation. As a
student and living with his aunt Doña Lupe, he has no income. The episode of the raiding of the
piggy bank is both a symbolic affront to doña Lupe’s overbearingness and a realization of Maxi’s
powerlessness.
Aunque aparentemente el gesto de Maxi puede interpretarse como generoso, lo
que pretende Maxi es “comprar” a Fortunata, invertir sus ahorros en ella para vivir de
los intereses. Fortunata presenta para él la oportunidad de desplegar su potencial
masculino por el lado de lo administrativo. Incapacitado físicamente, al contrario de
Juanito, su doble desde el otro lado del espejo, Maxi pretende desplegarse en lo
económico (Vilarós “La apropiación del cuerpo femenino: Usura y avaricia en
Fortunata y Jacinta.” Romance Quarterly 39 (1992): 77).

After Maxi meets Fortunata, he plans to “keep” Fortunata as his mistress and then make her
his wife. In order to do this, he must ignore her past and educate her in bourgeois social ways.
Maxi does this in order to justify that he is going against bourgeois society’s conventions
by marrying Fortunata as an equal of his own class. He tries to educate Fortunata in the ways of
bourgeois society, although he ultimately fails in this. The “veiling over” of Fortunata’s past

19
shows the extent to which Maxi is willing to go to have Fortunata conform to his image of a
mujer honrada.
The concept of honor is very important in nineteenth-century bourgeois society. For men,
honor is one of the most important intangible things to have in order to be able to function in
society. Honor, and its corollary, respectability, are in many ways embodied in women. It is
through women that men are able to claim honor. Don Baldomero Santa Cruz marries Barbarita
Arnaiz, a woman from similar class and social position as himself. By doing this he is ensuring
the status of the Santa Cruz family in society. Juanito Santa Cruz, although he has several affairs
with Fortunata and even has two children with her (although one dies soon after birth), does not
violate this code by marrying her. Instead, he marries Jacinta, “una mujer honrada” also from
similar background. The “fallen woman” / “angel” binary stereotype, common in many literary
texts of the day, is re-created here in Fortunata and Jacinta, “el ángel del hogar” of the Santa Cruz
household (Jagoe “The Subversive Angel” 81). However, Maxi, by marrying Fortunata, who is a
woman from the working class and a prostitute, violates this code of honor.
This code of honor is so prevalent in bourgeois society that Maxi, before he had met
Fortunata, had roamed the streets of Madrid, classifying women according to whether or not they
were honradas. (…) His preoccupation with honradez leads him to attempt the “education” of
Fortunata in the rules regulating ‘proper’ society. (…) The text pokes fun at the notion of
honradez, and implicitly, the codes of masculinity, through Maxi, who obviously is the complete
opposite of what a bourgeois man should be.
Maxi’s masculinity, and implicitly his sexual potency, is questioned unceasingly in the text.
Everyone, it seems, has an opinion regarding Maxi’s sexuality. (…) Even after his marriage, the
only way Maxi can express his affection and love for Fortunata is mentally, not physically. (…) It
is clear that Maxi is impotent and thus unable to show affection physically. Consequently, he
cannot have children with Fortunata.
Maxi’s illnesses are also linked with his ineffectual masculinity. His illnesses, particularly
his headaches, leave him so debilitated that the women around him think of him as a child instead
of a man.
Maxi’s weakness and his inability to perform sexually with a woman leads to speculation
by the narrator that Maxi is a homosexual, although that word never appears in the novel. The
text builds up to the confrontation between Juanito Santa Cruz and Maxi by continually pointing

20
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

to Maxi’s dubious sexuality, through the comments of other characters and the narrator’s
comments. Krauel writes that the fight between Maxi and Juanito is symbolically and structurally
significant within the novel. It is the confrontation episode which marks the low point of the
representation of Maxi’s masculinity, effectively marking him as “other” in the text.
The scuffle between the two leaves Maxi beaten up on the street, with a crowd gathering
around him. One of the onlookers exclaims “¡Quita allá! ¿Pero no ves que es marica?” The
anonymous onlooker says what the narrator and the other characters have been suspecting and
hinting at all along. It is the only place in the text where the word marica is written. The narrator
has conspicuously avoided the use of the word marica, even though Maxi is continually
presented as impotent and ineffectual. (…) Significantly, it is the silence surrounding the secret
which is more eloquent than what is actually said about it.
In the case, Galdós leaves no doubt as to Maxi’s deficient virility: but this realization
comes to the reader as ironic asides by the narrator, and what the other characters say about Maxi,
never by direct reference.
Maxi is also symbolically silenced by the novel: his voice fails him after the fight with
Juanito and becomes high-pitched, so that he sounds child-like.
Voices fail when there is no doubt left about the ineffectual masculinity of the characters.
Maxi’s marriage to Fortunata places Maxi in an untenable position. In effect, he is not a
“man” in society’s eyes. He did not marry a mujer honrada, cannot provide financially for the
woman he did marry, and is sexually impotent. Maxi’s solution – his panacea – to his position is
to refuse society completely by going insane.
Maxi’s mental instability becomes more and more pronounced as the novel progresses. At
one point, he is certain someone has stolen his honor. Although this is true Maxi insists on
looking for his honor, standing guard so that no one will rob him of it, as if his honor where a
physical thing to be taken – which it literally is, as Fortunata is the “repository” of Maxi’s honor.
His insanity is a way to remove himself from society, removing at the same time the need to
conform to the ideal of bourgeois masculinity.
“Perverse” sexual behavior was classified as a type of insanity; at the same time those
thought to be suffering from masturbation and other types of sexual “perversity” were actually
thought to be insane (as in mentally disturbed). Maxi’s insanity in this case can be read as part of
the “sickness” while dramatically showing this in his actions and words to others in the text.

21
Part of Maxi’s perceived insanity is that he believes there is a panacea which will cure his
“condition:” his disastrous marriage to Fortunata which has symbolically and socially left him
impotent.
The solution to Maxi’s position is, at first, to escape through death, renouncing society and
the codes of masculinity that are inevitably a part of it.
Maxi, however, is not talking about fearing death, but death as a liberation from life, from
the materiality of the body. His belief that death is liberation from life comes to a dramatic point
soon after he says he has discovered the panacea.
Death is liberation from la bestia, the material body which chains us to the world and to
society’s laws.
Committing suicide is a way out, freeing Maxi from the physical body. By freeing himself
from his body, Maxi can escape the pressure to conform to society’s notion of a bourgeois
masculinity identity. Maxi is aware that it is his body which is necessary to produce the
signification for a gendered identity, because in his dreams Maxi’s body, against his will,
produces the meanings necessary for an identity to be established:
Si no tengo sueño, a Dios gracias. Cuando duermo algo, sueño que soy hombre,
es decir, que la bestia me amarra, me azota y hace de mí lo que le da la gana…
¡Infame carcelero! (II, 320).
Maxi’s suicide plans collapse because he isn’t “brave” enough to kill himself. This passage
is also significant because of the awareness that it is the body which is important in the
production of a gendered identity.
Because physical suicide is not any longer an option, Maxi opts for social suicide. The best
way to accomplish this is to make everybody around him believe that he is “mad”. This is Maxi’s
panacea, which will finally release him from the misery and public humiliation of his marriage
and his impotence in his life.
Because physical suicide is not any longer an option, Maxi opts for social suicide. The best
way to accomplish this is to make everybody around him believe that he is “mad.” This is Maxi’s
panacea, which will finally release him from the misery and public humiliation of his marriage
and his impotence in his life.

22
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

Fortunata brings up a corollary to the code of honor – to avenge his own honor by shooting
both Juanito and Aurora. Maxi, however, does not do this either, but instead turns around and
tells on them, further highlighting his distance from bourgeois masculinity.
The end of the text reveals that Maxi is fully aware of how others perceive him. Because he
does not commit suicide, he escapes into the only other option left for him: institutionalization in
Leganés. There, in the insane asylum, he will be able to free form the expectation of bourgeois
masculinity. The saner he declares himself to be, the more insane everyone else thinks him.
Maxi realizes that he is going to be committed to the insane asylum, and he resigns himself
to his fate. Leganés is not perceived by him to be a jail, because this is precisely what he has
sought. He is not concerned any longer with society’s rules, because he is going to a place where
these rules do not apply.
In his final sentences Maxi echoes what he says earlier in the text about the correspondence
of names to things. The name of the thing does not matter; it is arbitrary: “Maxi questions the
natural relationship between words and things” (Tsuchiya, “Maxi and the Signs of Madness” 53).
However, society dictates than being called a ‘man’ is important, having behaviors associated
with it that are not associated with being a ‘woman’. Because Maxi speaks of himself in the third
person in his final sentences, he is in essence refusing the position of the masculine subject.
If identity is in essence a performance, only giving us meaning when adhering to those
certain acts and gestures that give it coherence, then, as we have seen, Maxi, who does not adhere
to those acts and gestures that give meaning to be a “man,” is in effect outside of his assigned
gender role because he does not adhere to those codes. What Maxi reveals is that gender is not a
fixed and stable category, but performative:
If gender attributes and acts, the various ways in which a body shows or
produces its cultural significations, are performative, then there is no preexisting
identity by which an act or attribute might be measured; there would be no true or
false, real or distorted acts of gender, and the postulation of a true gender identity
would be revealed as a regulatory fiction. That gender reality is created through
sustained social performances means that the very notions of an essential sex and a
true or abiding masculinity or femininity are also constituted as part of the strategy
that conceals gender’s performative character… (Butler, Gender Trouble 141)

23
By presenting a character who does not fit within the socially sanctioned gender identity
boundaries described, the text challenges bourgeois ideology of having a “true” and especially
“fixed” identity: “…bourgeois ideology in particular emphasizes the fixed identity of the
individual” (Belsey 64). In the character of Maximiliano Rubín we can see that masculine
identity is being questioned. In Maxi Rubín, we have a character that transgresses the boundaries
of bourgeois manhood, and is ultimately punished for it.
As Labanyi notes, Fortunata y Jacinta is a novel that “depicts a society dominated by the
market and by the State” (Gender and Modernization 166). Excess is a central theme in the novel,
whether the excessive length and minute descriptions of the economic and social background to
the novel, to Galdós’ attempt to write about everything (168).
“… Anxiety about masturbation was an expression of anxiety about a new political
economic order writ on the body” (Solitary Sex 280). Maxi serves as a cipher for these anxieties
precisely because he is at the center of a “fraudulent” exchange: his marriage to Fortunata is a
commercial translation (as noted above, he wants to “buy” Fortunata and make her over into his
wife) gone wrong. In a broader sense, then, the (literal) incorporation of the masturbation
discourse embodied in the figure of Maxi is symbolic of how these anxieties about modernization
and the credit economy play out on an individual level.

24
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

Sinnigen, John H. "Individual, Class and Society in Fortunata and Jacinta." Galdós.
Ed. Jo Labanyi. London: Longman, 1992. 116-39.

[Ed.]: The realist novel has, since Lukács’s Studies in European Realism, been a happy
hunting ground for Marxists critics, whose view of the text as the product of social and economic
forces largely coincides with the sociological attitude to literature prevalent in the nineteenth
century. Galdós’s work is no exception.
Sinnigen’s thesis that the unreliable male bourgeois narrator is in the course of the novel
‘educated’ by his female working-class protagonist anticipates later feminist criticism.

It was in 1886 that Galdós completed the first part of Fortunata and Jacinta, and although
this novel deals primarily with the revolutionary years of 1868-1874, it is clearly concerned not
just with that period and its movement from revolution to reaction but also with the
contradictions of Restoration society and of bourgeois society in general. [T]he Restoration tried
to incorporate peacefully all dissident forces in a futile effort to avoid social revolution. In this
study I shall examine the portrayal in Fortunata and Jacinta of the hypocrisy of that attempt.
Social criticism and the search for new values go hand in hand throughout Galdós’s work.
Structurally these themes are frequently presented in terms of the opposition of an outsider, a
representative of new, positive values, to a stagnant, retrograde society. For example, in Doña
Perfecta, in Tormento, and in Misericordia.
This outsider-society opposition is also the basis of the structure of Fortunata and Jacinta.
Here the outsider, Fortunata, the ‘working-class woman’, stands in contraposition to the vast
array of bourgeois and petty bourgeois characters who try to control her. Fortunata is regarded by
member of the middle class as an object which they can manipulate to fulfill their particular
egotistical ends. Juanito Santa Cruz sees her as a love object who can provide him with some
variety whenever he tires of middle-class life. And the members of the Rubín family and
Guillermina Pacheco regard her as a kind of tabula rasa on whom they can impress a new being
molded according to their wills. Yet, precisely while being handled as an object, Fortunata acts as
agent, for she refuses to be either just a love object or a tabula rasa. While these members of the
middle classes think they are playing with her, she is effecting significant changes in their way of
life. Fortunata is such a strong agent that she even affects the structure of the novel by changing

25
the role played by the narrator and by breaking up the separation of classes portrayed in the first
two parts.
So this poor ‘daughter of the people’ who is regarded by the members of the middle classes
as an object to be manipulated according to their will, turns out to be the most powerful agent of
this novel. An through this strength she resolves her alienation from bourgeois society, not by
accepting the conventions of that society but rather by overcoming the power through which
those conventions had subdued her.

The bourgeoisie
Part 1 is concerned primarily with describing the condition of the established Spanish
bourgeoisie in the Madrid of the early 1870s, as seen through the story of the Santa Cruz family.
This society is one in which the narrator is quite comfortable; he is acquainted with all the Santa
Cruz family and many of their friends, and he repeats the philosophical commonplaces of this
class. He is presenting the history of a class whose ideology and attitudes he shares.
This presentation, however, is not always sympathetic, for the narrator recognizes that the
bourgeoisie has separated itself from its popular base during its period of ascendancy. Therefore
he is critical of the way in which the modern age – manifest in changing styles and ideas – has
been introduced in Spain (account of the change in the status of the ‘mantón de manila’).
This attitude within the upper an middle classes demonstrates their desire to imitate the
‘European sobriety’ which had accompanied the bourgeois revolution in other countries.
This last sentence suggests that Spain had been unprepared for the bourgeois revolution
which swept across Europe in the nineteenth century. So the narrator criticizes the upper and
middle classes for imitating their European counterparts without considering the consequences to
the national character. He further notes that this national character, as represented in the bright
colors and the embroidered shawl, is retained solely by the populace.
This commercial imitation was accompanied by imitation in the realm of ideas. Thus the
principle of ‘progress’ is an important thematic element throughout Part 1. It, along with its
corollary, ‘changing times’, governs Baldomero Santa Cruz’s attitude toward the education of his
son. The idea of progress dominates all of Baldomero’s attitudes, whether the subject be
economics, politics, politics (he is a ‘progressive’), or the upbringing of his son. In this way he
and his kind pay homage to the bourgeois revolution.

26
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

A product of this devotion to the ideal of progress is the creation of a new caste, the
bourgeois ‘señoritos’, here represented by Juanito Santa Cruz. Because of his father’s and
grandfather’s success, Juanito is able to enjoy the leisure which previously had been the exclusive
privilege of the aristocracy. Juanito has never had to work, has been provided with any money he
might need, has been encouraged to travel, and, generally, has been free to conduct himself as he
has pleased. The portrayal of this ‘señorito’ is not, however, entirely favorable.
The narrator’s ironic comments undercut the impression the young Santa Cruz gives of
being a potentially great man and show him to fit the stereotype of the ‘señorito’ whose apparent
profundity gives way to a vacuous reality.
Through his capricious political attitudes and his infidelity in love Juanito proves himself to
be the epitome of inconstancy, and the narrator suggests that his inconstancy parallels that of
Spanish society. […] There is even a temporal correlation between Juan’s ‘surfeit of revolution’
and his ‘restoration’ to Jacinta and the ‘surfeit of revolution’ of the Spanish bourgeoisie and the
Restoration of the Bourbon dynasty.
This correlation between Juanito Santa Cruz and Spanish society is further demonstrated in
their mutual preoccupation with appearances. For example, Juanito is attracted to Fortunata each
time she reappears in a different role. […] Through the parallel drawn between Juanito and
Spanish bourgeois society we can see that these changes of government are inspired by a lack of
conviction and not by any virtue or ‘genuine, proper respect for order’. The values of the
‘señorito’ which are based on appearances and not reality are the values of this society.
The dichotomy between form and substance is obvious in the language of the inhabitants of
this bourgeois world. […] Juanito Santa Cruz is a model of glibness. This characteristic is
especially obvious when he finds it necessary to convince Jacinta that he has not really been
unfaithful.
Juanito is not only attracted by forms, but he is also a master of them. By his skillful
manipulation of language he could appear to know more than he really did, and as we see here,
he can turn the ugly truth into a polished lie. Juanito, then, uses language to hide rather than to
express reality.
In spite of the narrator’s recognition of the flaws of this society, he affirms strongly its
innately positive nature. In Part 1 we are still limited to the point of view of the bourgeoisie. On
at a dinner at the home of the Santa Cruz a group of people which is supposedly a ‘perfect sample

27
of all the social classes’, at which the two representatives of the lowest social position are Pepe
Samaniego who is in exactly the same position where Baldomero I was when he began building
his commercial empire, and Estupiñá who is nothing more than a glorified servant of the Santa
Cruz and Arnaiz families.
Members of the wealthy bourgeoisie were able to intermarry with members of the declining
aristocracy, thereby blurring the line separating these two classes. Money is a ‘positive class
distinction’ since bourgeois society is historically unique in that within it social relations have a
purely economic articulation. Thus in spite of the occasional ‘success’ of a Pepe Samaniego or an
Estupiñá, the populace remains apart from the middle classes precisely because it cannot obtain
capital.
Maintaining that the laws of capitalism are ‘as solid as the laws of physics’, the narrator is
merely echoing the opinions of bourgeois economists who cannot conceive of their system being
superseded by another. In this rather long theoretical statement, then, the narrator expresses that
view of society which is typical of the apologists of the bourgeoisie according to which the status
quo represents a state of concord, and therefore any talk of class conflict must necessarily be
irrational and unjustified.
Many of the narrator’s other theoretical comments also reflect common bourgeois attitudes.
For example, in chapter IV, ‘The Dauphin’s perdition and salvation’, is concerned with the period
in Juanito’s life when he immerse himself temporarily in the life of the common people. This
temporary immersion is, of course, the ‘perdition’, and the ‘salvation’ is his return to the norms
of bourgeois life. To an extent, then, the narrator shares the patronizing bourgeois attitude toward
the common people. This attitude is manifest in Juanito’s feeling that ‘The education of a man of
our times is incomplete if he does not come into contact with all kinds of people, if he does not
get a glimpse of all possible situations in life, it he does not take the pulse of all the passions. It’s
all a form of study an education. For Juanito, Fortunata and the entire working class exist merely
as a plaything to amuse him whenever he wishes to be so amused. He regards them purely as
objects, and he never stops to consider their humanity. This patronizing attitude is also manifest
in Guillermina Pacheco’s treatment of the working class. She is ‘charitable’ towards the poor but
only within the limits of bourgeois ethics. Thus she condemns Fortunata but excuses Juanito, and
she handles the affair of Izquierdo and the false Pituso as though this child were merely another

28
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

commodity. Like Juanito Santa Cruz, Guillermina sees the populace as an object which she can
use to fulfill her egotistical needs without ever recognizing these people’s humanity.
When Fortunata declares that she will always be working class, Juanito responds: “That’s
right, the common people…” Juan observed with a touch of pedantry. The narrator undercuts
Juanito’s sincerity by noting that this observation was made with ‘a touch of pedantry’. And his
statement that ‘when civilization loses touch with elemental emotions (…) it has to look for them
in the unhewn block (…) of the common people’ is merely a rationalization of his whimsical
sexual appetite. Again he crates a linguistic mask to hide the true nature of reality. Finally, he
reveals again in this statement his condescending attitude toward Fortunata and the working
class. They exist merely as an object (‘unhewn block’) for the bourgeoisie (‘civilization’) to
exploit whenever it ‘needs’ to do so. So Juanito’s ‘touch of pedantry’ allows him to justify his
despicable treatment of Fortunata to himself and to his class.
Guillermina repeats a philosophical commonplace similar to the one pronounced by
Juanito, and she too shows again her patronizing attitude toward the working class which is ‘prior
to civilization’ while Guillermina, of course, lies in that advanced, progressive society
characterized by the reconciliation of all classes. In spite of his previous criticism of Juanito, the
narrator restates his adherence to the dominant bourgeois thought by reiterating and expanding
Guillermina’s statement.
Now that, through its control of the national wealth, the bourgeoisie has established its
separation from the populace, it must from time to time return to this ‘unhewn block’ to
rediscover the ‘great truths’ it has left behind. This patronizingly benign attitude toward the
common people is a further way of denying class conflict; if the ‘civilized’ bourgeoisie is so
willing to admit – and even admire – the virtues of the lower classes, then why should these
‘primitive’ folk complain? And since in their poverty they are the retainer of the ‘great truths’,
why should they aspire to anything else?
The attitudes of the bourgeoisie are expressed clearly by such characters as Baldomero,
Juanito, and Guillermina, and are further reflected in the observations made by the narrator. In his
portrayal of the rise of the bourgeoisie and its current status the narrator has presented a
comprehensive bourgeois consciousness; even his criticisms of the status quo have been only
vague commentaries which in no way threaten the interests of the ruling class. And these
criticisms have been counterbalanced by an affirmation of the eternal nature of the underlying

29
laws of capitalism and by the repeated denial of the existence of a basis for class conflict. Only as
Fortunata emerges to become the dominant figure of the novel is the inadequacy of this stance
fully revealed.

The petty bourgeoisie


In part 2 the novelistic center shifts to the petty bourgeois world of the Rubin family. The
narrator is not so at home here as he was with the Santa Cruz. He has not known these people
personally, and he is not too familiar with the history of this family.
This lack of history contrasts with the detailed account of the rise of the house of Santa
Cruz, and it reflects the secondary social importance of the petty bourgeoisie as seen from the
narrator’s point of view.
The children of this class do not have the leisure to complete two university courses.
Rather, they must worry about practical economics. Lacking a university education, they do not
mouth the commonplace philosophical sayings which came out of the university. So within this
world there are no theoretical statements about the common propel or the reconciliation of the
classes, for these are not matters of immediate interest to the members of this class.
Since the petty bourgeoisie mediates the separation of the working class and the
bourgeoisie, members of this class engage in daily interaction with the other two classes.
From this intermediate position, the Rubin family can consider Fortunata in a way very
different from that in which the Santa Cruz saw her. Whereas Juanito Santa Cruz family scorned
Fortunata because of her inferior social position and was attracted primarily by her beauty, the
Rubín family are mainly concerned with the state of her virtue and are attracted not only by her
beauty but also by other qualities such as her thriftiness and sincerity.
In spite of their somewhat sympathetic attitude toward Fortunata, the Rubín family, in
different degrees, still regard her as an object through which they hope to satisfy egotistical
impulses. Maximiliano is inspired by his desire to redeem her, to make her ‘respectable’. Maxi
becomes so caught up in his ‘plan of regeneration’ that he loses sight of the real Fortunata. Doña
Lupe is attracted to Fortunata by a desire to reform her. Finally, Nicolás Rubín sees in Fortunata
an opportunity for him to show off the efficacy of his priestly talents. For all three of these
characters, Fortunata becomes merely a means to an end, and her humanity ceases to be of

30
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

importance; in spite of their appreciation of certain of Fortunata’s human qualities they see her as
an ‘unhewn block’ which they will model to suit their taste.
Their method of educating her is based on bourgeois convention. Educators did not deal
with Fortunata’s personality. Fortunata is educated by convention and formula, and her educators
expect this instruction to lead her to adapt herself to the established pattern of middle-class living.
They are destined to fail because they treat Fortunata as an object and disregard the very human
passion which is crucial to her existence.

The working class


The working class does not have any one part of this novel which is essentially all its own.
The role of the most important representative of this class, Fortunata, is dependent upon her
relations with members of the middle classes. In fact, since the narrator shares the perspective of
the bourgeoisie, we can see that her story never would have been told had she not been found by
Juanito Santa Cruz; the narrator asserts that ‘if Juanito Santa Cruz had not paid that visit [during
which he met Fortunata] this story would not have been written.
Since Juanito is the only narrator of his first affair with Fortunata, our initial responses to
her are based on his egotistical bourgeois point of view.
Aside from the background information which Juanito provides about her, Fortunata too
fills in a few details about her past.
This lack of ‘history’ shows that Fortunata’s past is of little interest to the narrator because
it would merely reveal a lack of variation in the role played by the common people.
Unlike the middle classes, the lot of the working class was not improved during the
nineteenth century, and so it produced none of the interesting details which the narrator found in
the stories of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. Whereas the histories of the Santa Cruz and
Rubín families represented the rise which their respective classes experienced during the period
of bourgeois ascendancy, the lack of history in Fortunata’s case represents the constancy of the
working class during that same period.
Vacillation between her desire for respectability and her physical impulse persists and
becomes the basis of Fortunata’s behavior throughout the novel.

31
This battle between her desire for respectability and her physical impulse is reflected in
Fortunata’s attitude toward Jacinta. She admires Jacinta in many ways, and she goes so far as to
posit her rival as a model of moral perfection.
After the two rivals meet, Fortunata feels a ‘strong desire to be not just equal but superior
to the other woman’. This desire then turns into a reassertion of her physical impulse, this time in
the form of scorn for Jacinta’s sterility.
Fortunata’s ‘idea’ emerges, replacing her previous wish to be ‘just like’ Jacinta.
Although she still wants to be like Jacinta in some ways, in ‘others’ – namely the ability to
have children – she now recognizes her superiority to her rival. The previous contradiction of
admiring Jacinta while still hating her is redefined as the opposition of a tempered admiration to a
sense of disdain. Fortunata still admires and desires Jacinta’s respectability while on the other
hand feeling that her rival is ‘beneath her’ because of her sterility.
As Fortunata struggles with her contradictory feeling she is continually developing an
awareness of her situation. Her efforts to deal with the presence of Jacinta inspire a sense of class
consciousness in her.
Fortunata expresses her awareness of the privileges Jacinta enjoys as a member of the
bourgeoisie. And she recognizes that differences in social position have distorted the equation
which otherwise would have existed between her own essential respectability and that of Jacinta.
She also despairs at being treated like a plaything by her middle-class companions.
This recognition of her condition of objectness goes along with a preoccupation about
whether or not she will ever be able to break the bonds of this condition. Fortunata has a good
understanding of the nature of her condition. She has been handled as a plaything by Juanito
Santa Cruz and by Maxi, Doña Lupe, Nicolás, and even Guillermina. None of these characters
understands the strength of Fortunata that comes ‘from deep inside herself’, the strength that is
inspired by her sincerity and her constant love for Juanito Santa Cruz.
She, too, remains unaware of this strength until her ‘idea’ impels her to ‘have guts’.
So, in their third affair, unlike the preceding ones, Fortunata is not merely letting herself be
used by Juanito. Rather she is looking for something more than just her lover’s company. She is
seeking the fulfillment of her ‘idea’.

32
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

Juanito cannot comprehend Fortunata’s having an ‘idea’. For him she can have ‘all the
charm in the world’, that is, the primitive substance contained in the common people, but she
cannot have an ‘idea’, for that would violate his conception of her as a primitive, passive being.
Unlike the passive role she played in the previous two affairs, here she will take the
initiative necessary to fulfill her plan.
The birth of this heir to the house of Santa Cruz, the incarnation of Fortunata’s ‘idea’,
represents the fulfillment of her wish to be not just equal but superior to Jacinta. Fortunata does
not appeal to Juanito for recognition and assistance, for she knows from past experience that he is
untrustworthy. Instead she demands recognition from Don Baldomero and Doña Bárbara of their
‘one and only grandson’.
Here Fortunata is dealing with the opposition between substance and form. According to
form, in this instance the convention of marriage, Jacinta is Juanito’s legitimate wife and
Fortunata is nothing but a prostitute, and according to that convention Fortunata could never
challenge Jacinta’s position. Yet Fortunata could never accept the ‘reality’ of the conventional
viewpoint. She eventually realizes that within the context of conventional legitimacy she can
never contest Jacinta’s claim since bourgeois society would never admit a challenge to one of its
conventions from a ‘daughter of the people’. Fortunata’s response to this predicament is the
formulation and fulfillment of her ‘idea’ through which she establishes her position as an
irreplaceable member of the Santa Cruz family. And this ‘idea’ is based on an affirmation of
substance and a rejection of form. Fortunata dismisses the institution of marriage as practiced by
the bourgeoisie as an institution which becomes impotent when confronted by ‘the natural’ she
has understood that to bourgeois society she is nothing but a plaything, so to resolve her dilemma
she has looked away from that society to the strength which she has ‘deep inside herself’.
The contrast that exists between Fortunata’s inner self and bourgeois convention is
accentuated during the presentation of the events surrounding her death.
Since she believes that she has had direct contact with an angle from above, she denies any
need for sacraments. As the spokesman for conventional religion, she insists on having these
sacraments performed.
From its inception, this ‘idea’, because of its unconventional nature, has escaped
Guillermina’s comprehension. Now, as Fortunata is fulfilling her sacrifice for the Santa Cruz
family, Guillermina is still insisting on convention. Fortunata has sacrificed her life so that there

33
could be an heir to the house of Santa Cruz, but Guillermina cannot comprehend this substantial
action because it has not been accomplished according to established form.
Through the fulfillment of her ‘idea’, Fortunata achieves the reconciliation of the opposing
sentiments which have been the foundation of her behavior. She no longer envies Jacinta nor
does she despise her.
When she attacks Aurora (Juanito’s current mistress), she does so in Jacinta’s name as well
as in her own, maintaining that ‘both of us have been wronged’. And she feels that her final
sacrifice qualifies her, too, to be an ‘angel’ like Jacinta. In her effort to imitate Jacinta, Fortunata
was forced to look into herself to discover how she too could achieve an ‘angelical’ status, and
through the result, her ‘idea’, she achieved the reconciliation of her desire for respectability and
her physical impulse; her respectability, in the form of the recognition of her son as the ‘one and
only family heir’ is established precisely through the force of her physical impulse, her constant
desire for Juanito Santa Cruz.
This sense of companionship is shared by Jacinta.
Although Guillermina is unwilling to admit Fortunata’s ‘angelical’ status, Jacinta cedes it
to her by recognizing her as an equal. And this experience leads Jacinta to a new level of
awareness. She rejects him. Jacinta’s experience of Fortunata has led to this qualitative change;
her continual suffering now turns into disdain.
As the novel ends, the structure of the relations among the central characters is rearranged.
Fortunata and Jacinta began as Juanito’s novel, and his presence had mediated the roles of his
wife and his lover; with him as mediator, they had been enemies. At the end, however, Juanito is
‘disowned’ and the companionship of the former rivals is now mediated by Fortunata’s son.
Profound effect that Fortunata has had on Jacinta, for here Jacinta too begins questioning
the propriety of established circumstances.
Fortunata’s sacrifice has given the Santa Cruz not only a new life, but also a new sense of
awareness since Jacinta now begins to question the conventions of bourgeois society which she
had always observed so meticulously. She cannot erase the substance of the contribution made by
Fortunata.
Fortunata y Jacinta also began as the novel of the bourgeoisie, with the narrator as well as
the principal characters serving as the articulators of the point of view of this class. We were told
about a society which had achieved a benevolent ‘confusion of […] classes’.

34
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

We were led by that patronizingly benign attitude which saw the common people as a
primitive ‘unhewn block’. In Part 4, however, this type of formulation of bourgeois attitudes is
absent. We see, for example, a new ‘confusion of […] classes’ at Fortunata’s house in the Cava
when, because of her son, such people as Guillermina, Jacinta, Bárbara, and Maximiliano come
to visit this humble establishment. This ‘confusion’ is created not by Don Baldomero’s
‘patriarchal beneficence’ but by Fortunata’s ‘idea’.
The ‘daughter of the people’ who was seen as nothing more than an object lacking all the
qualities of ‘civilized’ society, has now forced members of that society to come to her and
recognize her as the most powerful agent of the novel.
Fortunata has overcome the barriers which society has placed in her way, and this
achievement is reflected in the elimination of those commonplace pronouncements which had
‘defined’ all aspects of the novel according to the interests of the bourgeoisie. Not only has
Fortunata transformed the lives of the other characters, she has altered the structure of the novel.
Through her ‘idea’, Fortunata demonstrates a capability to act as agent that her middle class
companions had denied her.
So she shows that she is something more than an ‘animal’, and even more than ‘the unhewn
block of the common people, where those emotions have to be sought that civilization has lost by
over-refining them’. This commonplace attitude is shown by the action of this novel to be only a
half truth. Fortunata proves herself to be more than just an ‘unhewn block’, for she does not
allow herself to be molded according to the whims of her bourgeois companions. Instead she
achieves self-fulfillment through a negation of bourgeois conventions.
This novel has also shown that the working class is composed of many different individuals
with difference between the personalities of José Izquierdo and José Ido, Severiana and Segunda,
and Mauricia and Fortunata. Their outstanding similarities are their poverty and their alienation
from the middle classes.
The statements about the common people recognize this class as the retainer of the vitality
of human existence which the middle classes are losing through their ever increasing
preoccupation with things. For they are wrong in so far as they separate the common people from
the rest of ‘civilization’. The working class is not content with its alienated condition. Rather, the
desire to achieve respectability and so be accepted by the rest of society competes with its
physical impulse. But, unfortunately for society, the patronizing attitude of the middle classes

35
towards the common people which, by denying its subjectivity, in essence is denying the
humanity of this class, makes the fulfillment of this desire for respectability quite difficult. So a
monument figure like Fortunata must break those barriers from below, thereby providing the
middle classes with a new awareness of the inadequacy of its conventions.
Through her influence on Jacinta, Fortunata gives bourgeois society a new consciousness.
Previously Jacinta had accepted Juanito’s glib rationalization.
Now she rebels against ‘the state of mismanagement of this world’s affairs’. Jacinta finally
recognizes that the platitudinous positivism preached by Juanito merely supports the position of
those who benefit from it, and so she recognizes this necessity of challenging the status quo.
In spite of the drastic changes effected by Fortunata, Fortunata and Jacinta is clearly not a
revolutionary novel nor is the class conflict its only focus.
Fortunata brings redemption rather than revolution to the middle classes. For, although,
one degenerate element (the ‘señorito’, Juanito) has been ‘disowned’, and Jacinta has been given
a new awareness and a new motivation, the foundations of bourgeois society have not been
overthrown.
This choice of redemption rather than revolution demonstrates the petty bourgeois nature of
Galdós’s consciousness. For even though he was able to see and portray the immense
contradictions (which a purely bourgeois, ruling class, consciousness would deny) in the smooth
façade that Restoration society tried to present, he did not (as would proletarian consciousness)
see the historical task of the proletariat as being the revolutionary transformation of society.
Fortunata is unable to break definitively with the bonds which tie her to her ‘betters’, and
consequently she ends up making a sacrifice for a ‘healthier’ continuation of bourgeois society.
The end of the novel is then necessarily ambiguous. To an extent is ‘optimistic’. The union
between the ‘señorito’ and the ‘daughter of the people’ has produced an offspring; this child is
not to become another forgotten member of the ‘unhewn block’.
And the working class has provided the bourgeoisie not only with a new life but also with a
new sense of awareness which should lead to a less conventional, more ital society in the future.
Yet this ‘optimism’ is guarded. The child may be raised to be a ‘señorito’ just like his father.
Maximiliano’s experience of Fortunata and especially of her death leads him, too, to a new
sense of awareness. He admits that their marriage had been a mistake. Maxi, too, realizes that
Fortunata was not merely the object he had conceived her to be. This recognition of his error

36
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

leads him to desire a withdrawal from this world which had fooled him so badly, and so he
requests to go to a monastery. But, convinced of her nephew’s insanity, Doña Lupe has him taken
to an asylum, Leganés. Maxi, however, is not deceived.
Only through this escape from the reality of everyday life can Maxi to solutions for all his
problems, since his logic, which functions very well when it is not interrupted by emotions , in
incapable of coping with the person of Fortunata. This ending suggests, then, that the only true
‘proper, decorous situation’ is death and that absolute solutions can be found only in the realm of
Pure Thought. Therefore the resolution offered by Fortunata’s ‘idea’ of the differences between
the working class and the bourgeoisie can only be a potential solution to the problems of society,
for those who must carry out this resolution continue, unlike Feijoo and Maxi, to live in the world
of material reality where it does make a difference if one is in a palace or a dung heap and where
idealist solutions cannot be realized.

37
Labanyi, Jo. Gender and Modernization in the Spanish Realist Novel. Oxford: OHS. 2000.

5. The Consumption of Natural Resources: Galdos’s Fortunata y Jacinta (1886-1887) (pp.


165-208)

Georg Simmel’s The Philosophy of Money (1900) argues that modernity is a product of
the exchange economy. Simmel differs from Marx in focusing on consumption rather than
production, for he is concerned with the ways in which capitalism is experienced by society at
large. His premiss is that socialization is exchange and that money is ‘nothing but the pure form
of exchangeability’. Money is therefore ‘entirely a social institution and quite meaningless is
restricted to one individual’.
In Fortunata y Jacinta, Maxi fills his replacement piggy-bank with worthless small
change, and uses his savings to initiate himself into social relations. Simmel notes that, in the
exchange economy, value is not fixed and inherent but fluctuating and based on the relationships
between things.
Girards’s analysis of the importance of triangular desire in the nineteenth-century novel;
Fortunata y Jacinta is a novel based on a network of interlocking triangular relationships. The
abstract, symbolic nature of money is seen by Simmel as the basis of the modern cultural trend
towards the replacement of reality by forms of representation. This, I shall argue, is the
significance of nineteenth-century realism, in its desire to represent everything.
Simmel notes that the replacement of reality by representation is made necessary by the
increasing size and complexity of modern urban society, requiring the creation of representative
symbols (money) and the delegations of power to representative agents (elected parliamentary
deputies). As money increasingly becomes a symbol with no intrinsic worth, it depends more and
more on its validation by public institutions and authorities. An increasingly abstract system of
monetary representation goes hand in hand with the growth of the State, conceived as a
representative body.
Fortunata y Jacinta depicts a society dominated by the market and by the State. It is the
first Galdós’s novels to explore in detail the problem of caciquismo, that is, an adulterated system
of political representation. The exchange economy depicted in the novel is similarly marked by a
fear of being passed off with adulterated goods for, if value lies in what things cost rather than in
what they are, the distinction between the fraudulent and the legitimate becomes problematic.
The novel illustrates Simmel’s contention that modernity, being mediated by money, is

38
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

characterized by relativism. All the relationships in the novel, even the most selfless, are
mediated by money.
The novel shows the impossibility of making clearcut distinctions in an exchange
economy where everything is interconnected. It develops to the full the problem that of
distinguishing between good fusions (marriage) and bad confusions (adultery, figurative incest).
The parallels between private and public life have been read as political allegory; they can also be
read as an illustration of the inextricable confusion of that which should be separate. The
relativism resulting from this blurring of distinctions is articulated by the novel’s closing words:
‘lo mismo da.’
The characters and narrator constantly comment on the complex interconnections behind
disparate events: Juanito would not have met Fortunata if Estupiñá had not fallen ill; Nicolás
Rubín would not have been made a canon if Fortunata had not been unfaithful to Maxi. The first
part of the novel turns into a history and geography lessons, for the most remote events have
public and private repercussions: the British establishment of a trading post in Singapore and the
construction of a railway across the Suez Isthmus change the course of the Madrid textile trade
and with it that of the Arnaiz family. The global dimensions of the capitalist economy produce a
sense of relative space, requiring artists to find a way of representing a world in which everything
affects everything else.
Fortunata y Jacinta is an attempt to write a ‘novel about everything’, for in the global
exchange economy everything is relevant. The novel’s apparent openness is the other side of a
vast network of connections that traps the characters within its confines; the story of the Rubín
family becomes inextricably entwined with that of the Santa Cruz family so that we come back to
them full circle at the end: an end which, with the birth of Fortunata’s son, is another beginning.
The image of this interconnectedness is the family: the ‘enredadera’ of kinship relations
which binds the different economic strata of Madrid, indeed of the nation, in an unintelligible
tangle – an image not so much of unity as of hopeless confusion.
Chapters 2-5 of part I trace the process of nation formation that, since the late eighteenth
century, has enveloped everything and everyone within its folds. In so doing, they articulate the
anxieties underlying the novel as a whole. That Galdós should choose the drapery business as a
cipher of the modernization process is not accidental for it was the first forma of commerce to
develop the characteristics of modern retailing, by introducing plate-glass shop windows,

39
window displays, and the gas-lighting that turned the newly modernized city into a theatrical
display. The original Santa Cruz draper’s shop, built up from 1796 by Don Baldomero’s self-
made father, was inherited by him in 1848. Don Baldomero maintained his father’s practices
unchanged, except that, with the tariff reforms of 1849, he started to import cloth from abroad.
It was a family firm where the employees ate and prayed and went for walks with the
owners: the capitalist split between household and business had not yet occurred. All this alters
with the 1868 Revolution. Don Baldomero realizes the new economic climate will bring changes
he is not suited to handle and sells the business off, instituting the private / public split. However
the split is imperfectly realized, reflecting Spain’s incomplete transition to modernity, for the
firm’s new owners are his nephews.
The novel stresses the incestuous tendency of pre-1868 Madrid commerce, both because
the owners of different establishments were related and because the firm was not yet separated
from the family.
Bárbara’s father’s business also illustrates the lack of division between public and private
spheres, with the family living over the shop, and the latter hosting a tertulia which provides a
forum for public critical debate at a time when clubs (casinos) did not exist and patriotic societies
were still exclusive.
Bárbara’s father imports textiles from the Philippines, China, Japan, and India. The
narrator comments that the ‘nacional obra de arte’, the mantón de Manila, is an oriental product,
for in the capitalist system the foreign contributes to the making of the national.
In the 1850s Bárbara’s sister-in-law, Isabel Cordero, effectively takes over running the
family business, abandoning oriental imports for French, Belgian, British, and Swiss
‘novedades’, specializing in white linen as plans to supply Madrid with running water anticipate
a time when people will wash and change their clothes regularly.
In the 1870s , after the public / private split has been effected, Aurora Samaniego – who
manages several departments of a department store also specializing in white linen –will be made
an adulteress, for women who occupy both public and private roles are now a problem.
In introduction female fashions, Isabel Cordero is unwittingly ushering in a new age of
free trade, when things are no longer kept in the family and women start to leave the home to go
shopping. If the earlier period was incestuous, the new age will be marked by adultery. The
change from a society based on the family unit to one based on free flow is figured by the

40
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

generational shift from Don Baldomero and Dona Barbara’s common matrimonial bed to the
separate beds of Juanito and Jacinta, in line with the recommendations of late nineteenth-century
hygiene manuals that air should be allowed to circulate freely between bodies. The narrator
comments that the bourgeoisie’s mid-century takeover of the public sphere has been called ‘el
imperio de la levita’, but that it is more aptly symbolized by ladies’ fashions.
Women’s entry into the market as consumers mirrors the blurring of the public and the
private created by the traffic of money and goods, and by the State’s increasing invasion of
private life through legislation, tax, and social reform.
The construction of a national economy includes the incorporation of women as
consumers. Things go into circulation and women follow.
The Santa Cruz family quite literally inhabits Madrid’s main labor market, which turns
persons into economic resources or ‘human capital’.
From the mid-nineteenth century, as production became separated from the household
unit, domestic labor became increasingly ‘feminized’ – that is, restricted to unproductive
domestic service in the form of housekeepers and maids – which changed the face of the human
market in the Plaza de Santa Cruz. The significance of this context of market relations should be
obvious.
Despite his opposition to free trade, Don Baldomero supports the general belief in
progress, understood by him in terms of Bastiat’s doctrine of laissez-faire and the higienist Pedro
Mata’s view of the individual and collective body as a self-regulating, self-renewing system.
The healthy body is one in which flow is unimpeded. Don Baldomero uses this argument
to justify allowing his son to do what he likes, with the result that Juanito consumes without
feeding anything back into the system. A generation later, the novel ends on a note of exhaustion
and pessimism: belief in the body’s capacity to renew its energies has been lost. This is not, as is
commonly stated, the result of a change form production to consumption as Don Baldomero sells
off the family firm: his draper’s shop was always a retail outlet stimulating consumption, and in
investing his money he is still contributing to the national wealth by facilitating the flow of
capital. What has happened is that the capitalist dynamic initiated in the first half of the century
has, with the removal of controls in 1868, overflowed the system’s limits.
Estupiña’s love of the market-place logically makes him a smuggler avoiding customs
duties for he sees State control as a threat to individual freedom. This points to the central

41
contradiction in the liberal project, which furthers individual rights while extending the powers of
the nation-State.
Juanito’s and Jacinta’s first major stop is Barcelona, where they visit the modern textile
mills, giving Jacinta an insight into the reality that lies behind commodity fetishism. She is the
one who perceives the dreariness of the factory girls’ machine-like existence. Her nascent
philanthropic concern is that of a woman for other women: again the first hint in the novel of new
all-female social configurations, bypassing men.
The novel’s treatment of national politics from 1869 to 1876 is set against the
consumption of food and drink, at the Santa Cruz table or in Madrid’s many cafes. Despite the
Santa Cruz family’s origins in the draper’s business, most of the consumption that takes place in
the novel is not of fashions but of food, for the stress is on the exhaustion of natural resources.
In Fortunata y Jacinta, the ‘sociedad de los vagos’ constituted by Madrid’s political
aspirants is a ‘public family’ that lives ‘en la calle’; that is, in the cafe. The novel describes this
café society as a ‘feria’ or market where ideas and jobs are exchanged: a kind of bourgeois – and
considerably less socially useful – equivalent of the labor market for which the Plaza de Santa
Cruz was famous. For Juan Pablo Rubin, the café is what the ‘hogar domestico’ is to the ‘buen
burgues’; he lives with a ‘mujer publica’, Refugio because he has no concept of privacy. The
State is an extended family which includes appendages related not by kin but through a favor
system.
The extended family is an adulterated family, for its appendages – standing, like the
adulterer, inside and outside the family unit – blur its boundaries.
The most noticeable feature of the ‘political families’ at the Santa Cruz table and in
Madrid’s cafes is their promiscuity, for the Restoration was based on a politics of conciliation.
The novel shows that this political promiscuity – a ‘fraternity’ based not on an incestuous
keeping things in the family but on a adulterous bringing everyone in – goes back to the sexenio
revolucionario: Juan Pablo Rubin and Jose Izquierdo oscillate between Carlism and
republicanism. These changes of loyalty make it easy for the Restoration to ‘unify’ the nation; the
result is a family of disparate, unfaithful bedfellows. Café society has ceased to be the public
sphere of critical debate between private individuals because it no longer sees its function as that
of an opposition; the proliferation of State employees was largely responsible for this loss of
critical independence.

42
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

Feijoo, the only member of this café society who is indebted to no one, conserves the
critical spirit of Spain’s major Enlightenment intellectual, Padre Feijoo, but he too makes use of
the Sate favor system, albeit to help others. With the Restoration, in addition to getting Nicolas
Rubin appointed canon, he persuades Villalonga to give Juan Pablo a job in the prison service,
where he had worked before the Republic.
In 1876 Villalonga appoints Juan Pablo Provincial Governor of ‘his’ province, making it
clear that his job is to subdue all opposition; we are told that Romero Robledo has given him
carte blanche to use whatever methods are necessary. Juan Pablo instantly promises to make one
of his café ‘friends’ his inspector of police. Juan Pablo had started his career as a traveling
salesman in the provinces, helping construct a nationwide market. His later career in the prison
service and in the violent enforcement of State authority shows how the other side of nation
formation is centralized regulation and control: that is, the massive invasion of private life. Juan
Pablo justifies this ‘Estado tutelar’ based on coercion since ‘el pueblo espanol esta ineducado y
hay que impedir que cuatro pillastres enganen a los inocentes’. His incompatible mixture of
‘socialismo sin libertad, combinado con el absolutismo sin religion’, acquired from his variegated
political past, suits him admirably to the job of enforcing ‘el espiritu conciliador’ of the
Restoration. He does not give up his mistress Refugio but keeps her out of sight in Madrid, for
the Restoration is about having it both ways. Feijoo also engineers Fortunata’s reconciliation with
Maxi as ‘otra Restauracion’ designed to help her have it both ways as a wife and adulteress; but
there is a fundamental difference here, for Feijoo’s golden rule is the inviolacy of privacy.
Jose Ido, obsessed with his own wife’s supposed adultery, defines this ‘adulterous’
politics of reconciliation as ‘libertad’. As a former teacher, Ido supports the project of national
unification through State regulations. Ido corrects spelling mistakes found in the street, just as
Maxi corrects Fortunata’s non-standard speech. Galdos’s refusal to standardize or correct his
lower-class characters’ speech can be seen as a protest against this homogenization. When the
narrator of Fortunata y Jacinta praises the ‘dichosa confusion de clases’ of modern Spanish
society which has ‘solved’ class conflict by creating ‘la concordia y reconciliacion de todas
ellas’, he is setting out the political program of the Restoration, rightly attributing this ‘national
unity’ to the State bureaucracy, the State education system, and the leveling effects of money. We
must remember that the narrator is a friend of Villalonga, fully involved in enforcing the
Restoration’s ‘supervised freedom’.

43
The narrator goes on to describe Spain’s supposed social ‘harmony’ as a ‘revoltijo’,
labyrinth, and ‘enredadera’.
That the Restoration’s ‘espiritu conciliador’ is a bad confusion of things that ought to be
separate is implied by the analogy drawn between the nation’s changes of political allegiance and
Juanito Santa Cruz’s marital prevarications. The Restoration is the culmination of the sexenio
revolucionario’s oscillation between order (monarchy/marriage) and anarchy (republic/adultery),
‘reconciling’ the two by fusing them simultaneously. It is not just that Fortunata’s ‘otra
restauracion’ permits her to have it both ways (for a while); Juanito is reconciled with Jacinta, on
the day Alfonso XII enters Madrid, because he is attracted to her as if she were ‘la mujer de otro’.
The relationship between husband and wife has itself become adulterous. As Jacinta comments,
Juanito’s marital caresses are ‘sobras de otra parte’ which ‘vienen muy usadas’. To confuse
things more, Fortunata’s constant love for Juanito makes adultery a form of fidelity. Marriage
and adultery are becoming indistinguishable.
The vagaries of national politics and Juanito’s sexual prevarications are both described as
subject to fashion. Juanito’s new style of dressing betrays his affair with Fortunata; the changes
of political regime keep the drapers happy because the new incumbents and their wives update
their wardrobes. Politics enters the novel in the form of gossip or news; as such, it becomes
fashion.
The Restoration is the culmination of the realm of fashion initiated in the mid-century
because it is an attempt to harmonize modernization with stability; that is, the new with the ever-
same. As in fashion, this signifies standardization (national unity) through the imitation of
foreign models.
Juanito’s relations with women are those of a consumer driven by desire for the latest
model possessed by others; apart from being attracted to his wife as if she belonged to another,
his desire for Fortunata is rekindled when he learns she is dressed in the latest Parisian fashions
and with another man, and again when he hears she is married. He tires of her because, unlike his
friends’ mistresses, she fails to assimilate fashionable French manners and her constancy
represents an imperviousness to fashion. It is logical that he should replace Fortunata with
Aurora: a Frenchman’s widow and manager of the ‘novedades’ sections of a new department
store.

44
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

Juanito is the flaneur consuming the city’s preasures. He rejects his father’s suggestion
that he make his money productive by investing it and devotes it entirely to consumption. His
controlled dissipation is an image of capitalist ‘excess within limits’. Feijoo comments on his
meanness in ‘buying Fortunata off’.
The same Don Baldomero who is reluctant to introduce advertising insists that Juanito
should have his fun in Paris.
Dona Lupe remarks that, despite her dissolute morals as a prostitute, Mauricia is an
extremely efficient commercial representative – logically, for both activities signify entry to the
market.
Feijoo is similarly concerned with allowing sexual expenditure without overspending. His
advice to Fortunata to reduce her excessive emotional output – is another version of Restoration
compromise. But he devotes himself to restoring her energies: he is more concerned with her
health than her morals, and he delights in watching her eat, whereas Juanito consumes he while
conserving his own energies. It is not just a problem of limiting expenditure, but of making it
flow reciprocally so that energies are renewed and not drained.
Fortunata may be uninterested in fashion, but she cannot escape the market economy that
is all around her.
Her association with the market links her in every sense with prostitution, as a form of
economic trafficking and as possible source of moral and physical contagion.
Fortunata became a prostitute out of necessity. Her incorporation into the market as an
exchange commodity thus makes her a victim rather than a free agent. Shopping, however, gives
her a measure of freedom.
Feijoo increases her independence by giving her some shares and some sound
management advice: entry to the market does give freedom if one knows how to play it and if one
has some start-up capital. Fortunata’s first adultery with Juanito, like her original affair with him,
was governed by blind instinct; her second adultery with him, after Feijoo’s lessons, is
consciously chosen. This second adultery, in which she freely disposes of her property in her
person, culminates in what, for market theory, is the litmus test of individual freedom: the
making of a contract freely disposing of her property, as she dictates a will leaving her child to
Jacinta and her shares to Guillermina.

45
True to her liberal definition of freedom, it is her ownership of property (some shares and
a son inscribed in the property-owning system as the Santa Cruz heir) and her consequent ability
to dispose freely of it that makes her a free individual. She thus achieves her aim of being
recognized as the bourgeois, property-owning Jacinta’s equal.
Her will is a contract between three women, leaving Juanito out of the picture. It is this
final contract between women that empowers Jacinta to dictate the terms of a de facto legal
separation to Juanito. Jacinta hereby not only declares Juanito free, but establishes her own claim
to freedom.
Moreno Isla, a London banker stands at the apex of the capitalist system. Moreno knew
how to manage money but died of a heart attack because he could not manage his bodily
economy: his doctor’s advice is to avoid ‘overtaxing’ himself emotionally. Contemporary
hygiene manuals saw the passions as an illness excessively draining the body’s reserves.
Moreno’s death is caused by a circulation problem (high blood pressure), producing congestion
and subsequent hemorrhage. Fortunata, also good at managing her finances but unable to manage
her emotional expenditure, likewise dies of a hemorrhage after attacking her rival Aurora, while
recovering form childbirth.
Moreno dies because he dams his emotions up; Fortunata dies because she lets them out:
the result in both cases is a fatal draining of reserves. These two contrasting failures to achieve
balance signal an unbalanced economic system.
Moreno’s emotional and physical congestion figures capitalist over-accumulation.
Conversely, Fortunata represents the pueblo who feeds the system but does not consume.
The distinction between marriage and adultery is further complicated because
consumerism, associated with female adultery because both take women into the public sphere, is
in this novel also associated with marriage.
But Fortunata commits adultery for love, refusing Juanito’s offer of gifts. However, she
marries for money.

[[185]]

46
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

Chamberlin, Vernon A. "Poor Max's Windmill: Aquatic Symbolism in Fortunata y Jacinta."


Hispanic Review. 50.4 (Autumn 1982): 427-37.
Chamberlin, Vernon A. "The Perils of Interpreting Fortunata's Dream." Anales Galdosianos. 34.(
1999): 113-24.
Chamberlin, Vernon A. "The So-Called Problem of Closure in Fortunata y Jacinta and Tristana
Revisited By Means of Musical Structure." Decimononica: Journal of Nineteenth Century
Hispanic Cultural Production. 4.1 (Winter 2007): 12-22.
Ribbans, Geoffrey. "Interpreting Galdos' Fortunata." Bulletin of Spanish Studies: Hispanic
Studies and Researches on Spain, Portugal, and Latin America. 82.3-4 (May-June 2005): 447-63.
Arroyo Almaraz, Antonio. "La casa como nucleo estructurador del espacio urbano en la novela
del siglo XIX: Fortunata y Jacinta de B. Perez Galdos y La febre d'or de N. Oller." Revista de
Lengua y Literatura Catalana, Gallega y Vasca. 7.(2000-2001): 17-28.
Tsuchiya, Akiko. "Maxi and the Signs of Madness: Reading as Creation in Fortunata y Jacinta."
Hispanic Review. 56.1 (Winter 1988): 53-71.
Labanyi, Jo. "Galateas in Revolt: Women and Self-Making in the Late Nineteenth-Century
Spanish Novel." Women: A Cultural Review. 10.1 (Spring 1999): 87-96.
Jagoe, Catherine. "The Subversive Angel in Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales Galdosianos. 24.
(1989): 79-91.
Perez Galdos, Benito. Fortunata y Jacinta. Edicion de Francisco Caudet. Madrid: Catedra. 1994.

47
MLA International Bibliography. Gale. CUNY - Graduate Center. 9 Sept. 2010
"Conflicting Realities: Four Readings of a Chapter by Bly, Peter A. "Cafes in Fortunata y Jacinta." Hispanic
Perez Galdos (Fortunata y Jacinta, Part III, Chapter IV)." Ed. Peter Studies in Honour of Geoffrey Ribbans. Ed. Ann L. Mackenzie and
B. Goldman London: Tamesis, 1985. 145 pp. Coleccion Tamesis, Dorothy S. Severin Liverpool: Liverpool UP, 1992. 139-46.
Ser. A-Monogs. 90. London: Liverpool Monographs in Hispanic Studies Liverpool:
"Fortunata and Jacinta: Two Stories of Married Women." Bly, Peter A. "Choices and Consequences: Refocussing
Athens: U of Georgia P, 1986. xxiii, 818 pp. the Debate on the Meaning of Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales
"Fortunata y Jacinta." Ed. German Gullon Madrid: Altea, Galdosianos. 33.( 1998): 103-13.
Taurus, Alfaguara, 1986. 416 pp. Bly, Peter A. "El factor F: Frigilis y Feijoo como figuras
"Fortunata y Jacinta: Claves de lectura." Ed. Yolanda clave en el destino novelistico de Ana Ozores y Fortunata." Luz
Arencibia and Ma del Prado Escobar Tenerife: Pubs. de la Univ. de vital: Estudios de cultura hispanica en memoria de Victor
La Laguna, 1989. 120 pp. Ouimette. Ed. Ramon F. Llorens and Jesus Perez Magallon
"Textos y contextos de Galdos." Ed. John W. Kronik and Alicante, Spain: Department of Hispanic Studies, McGill
Harriet S. Turner Madrid: Castalia, 1994. 209 pp. University, 1999. 39-48.
Adler, Robert Leon. "The Converso Problematic in Larra Bly, Peter A. "Give and Take: Ironic Verbal Echoes in the
and Galdos." Dissertation Abstracts International. 46.2 (Aug. Last Chapter of Fortunata y Jacinta." Critica Hispanica. 13.1-2 (
1985): 437A. 1991): 69-85.
Anderson, Farris. "La ciudad como diseno de la novela: Bly, Peter A. "In the Factory: Description in Galdos."
Madrid en Fortunata y Jacinta." Madrid, de Fortunata a la M-40: Naturalism in the European Novel: New Critical Perspectives. Ed.
Un siglo de cultura urbana. Ed. Edward Baker and Malcolm Alan Brian Nelson New York: Berg, 1992. 210-25. Berg European
Compitello Madrid, Spain: Alianza, 2003. 59-85. Studies Series New York:
Anderson, Farris. "The City as Design for the Novel: Bly, Peter A. "La calle vetustense y el arbol madrileno, o
Madrid in Fortunata y Jacinta." Arizona Journal of Hispanic la estructuracion parodica del escalafon de personajes de La
Cultural Studies. 3.( 1999): 85-104. Regenta y Fortunata y Jacinta." Siglo Diecinueve. 1.( 1995): 215-
Andrade, Graciela. "Las expresiones del lenguaje familiar 21.
de Pérez Galdós en Fortunata y Jacinta." Dissertation Abstracts. Bly, Peter A. "Ripples on the Pond: Interdependent
17.( 1958): 3008-09. Approaches to the Galdos Chapter." Conflicting Realities: Four
Andreu, Alicia G. "Dialogo de voces en Fortunata y Readings of a Chapter by Perez Galdos (Fortunata y Jacinta, Part
Jacinta." Actas del VIII Congreso de la Asociacion Internacional de III, Chapter IV). Ed. Peter B. Goldman London: Tamesis, 1985. 73-
Hispanistas, I. Ed. A. David Kossoff, Jose Amor y Vazquez, Ruth 94. Coleccion Tamesis, Ser. A-Monogs. 90. London:
H. Kossoff, and Geoffrey W. Ribbans Madrid: Istmo, 1986. 153- Bonet, Laureano. "Don Elias Orejon, el espia que surgio
158. de la sombra: La fontana de oro." Textos y contextos de Galdos.
Armistead, S. G. "The Canarian Background of Pérez Ed. John W. Kronik and Harriet S. Turner Madrid: Castalia, 1994.
Galdós' echar los tiempos." Romance Philology. 7.( 1953): 190- 55-65.
192. Boring, Phyllis Zatlin. "The Streets of Madrid as a
Arroyo Almaraz, Antonio. "Benito Perez Galdos y Narcis Structuring Device in Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales Galdosianos.
Oller: Formulacion y percepcion narrativas de la ciudad." Revista 13.( 1978): 13-22.
de Lengua y Literatura Catalana, Gallega y Vasca. 6.(1998-1999): Bourne, Louis. "The Animals We Are: Images of Bestial
17-27. Reduction in La Regenta (1885) and Fortunata y Jacinta (1887)."
Arroyo Almaraz, Antonio. "La casa como nucleo MIFLC Review. 10.(Fall 2001): 52-63.
estructurador del espacio urbano en la novela del siglo XIX: Braun, Lucille V. "Galdós' Re-Creation of Ernestina
Fortunata y Jacinta de B. Perez Galdos y La febre d'or de N. Oller." Manuel de Villena as Guillermina Pacheco." Hispanic Review.
Revista de Lengua y Literatura Catalana, Gallega y Vasca. 7.(2000- 38.1 (Jan. 1970): 32-55.
2001): 17-28. Braun, Lucille V. "The Novelistic Function of Mauricia la
Barrio Olano, Jose Ignacio. "Claves y caracterizaciones: dura in Galdos' Fortunata y Jacinta." Symposium. 31.( 1977): 277-
Ensayos literarios." Coyoacan, Mexico: Ediciones y Graficos Eon, 89.
2005. 153 pp. Braun, Lucille Virginia. "Problems of Literary Creation in
Berenguer, Angel. "Teatro y teatralidad en Galdos." Five Characters of Galdós' Fortunata y Jacinta." Dissertation
Galdos en el centenario de Fortunata y Jacinta. Palma de Mallorca: Abstracts. 22.( 1962): 4011.
Prensa Universitaria, 1989. 14-26. Brooks, J. L. "The Character of Doña Guillermina
Bisetti, Enrica. "La piazza: Realta e immaginario. Scene Pacheco in Galdos' Novel Fortunata y Jacinta." Bulletin of
da Fortunata y Jacinta e da Misericordia di Benito Perez Galdos." Hispanic Studies. 38.( 1961): 86-94.
Torre di Babele: Rivista di Letteratura e Linguistica. 3.( 2005): 43- Buffum, Mary E. "Galdós's Usage with Regard to the
52. Enclitic Pronoun." Modern Language Journal. 11.1 (Oct. 1926):
Blanco Aguinaga, Carlos. "Having No Option: The 33-37.
Restoration of Order and the Education of Fortunata." Conflicting Calvo Garcia, Joaquin, Jose Javier Gonzalez Higueras,
Realities: Four Readings of a Chapter by Perez Galdos (Fortunata y Celestino Lopez Alvarez, and Francisco Torecilla del Olmo. "La
Jacinta, Part III, Chapter IV). Ed. Peter B. Goldman London: dialectica naturaleza/sociedad en Fortunata y Jacinta." Nuevo
Tamesis, 1985. 13-38. Coleccion Tamesis, Ser. A-Monogs. 90. Hispanismo. 1.(Winter 1982): 137-155.
London: Calley, Louise Nelson. "Galdós's Concept of Primitivism:
Blanco Aguinaga, Carlos. "La historia y el texto literario: A Romantic View of the Character of Fortunata." Hispania: A
Tres novelas de Galdos." Madrid: Nuestra Cultura, 1978. 127 pp. Journal Devoted to the Teaching of Spanish and Portuguese. 44.4
Blanco Aguinaga, Carlos. "La 'originalidad' de Galdos." (Dec. 1961): 663-65.
Textos y contextos de Galdos. Ed. John W. Kronik and Harriet S. Caminals-Heath, Roser. "The Madman in Spanish
Turner Madrid: Castalia, 1994. 179-83. Literature: Cervantes and Perez Galdos." Mid-Hudson Language
Bly, Peter A. "Al perder la virginidad tres heroinas Studies. 8.( 1985): 53-62.
galdosianas." Insula: Revista de Letras y Ciencias Humanas. Cardona, Rodolfo. "En torno a Fortunata y Jacinta:
48.561 (Sept. 1993): 11-13. Presentacion." Anales Galdosianos. 9.( 1974): 5.

48
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

Casalduero, Joaquin. "Sobre Fortunata y Jacinta." Insula: Galdos." Estreno: Cuadernos del Teatro Espanol Contemporaneo.
Revista de Letras y Ciencias Humanas. 35.404-405 (July-Aug. 21.1 (Spring 1995): 7-10.
1980): 14. Chamberlin, Vernon. "Echoes from the World of Rossini
Caudet Roca, Francisco. "Jose Izquierdo y el cuarto estado and Beethoven in Galdos's Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales
en Fortunata y Jacinta." Actas del Tercer Congreso Internacional de Galdosianos. 37.( 2002): 89-101.
Estudios Galdosianos, II. Las Palmas: Excmo. Cabildo Insular de Dale, Scott. "La dialectica Guillermina de Fortunata y
Gran Canaria, 1990. 25-30. Jacinta, o la primera 'rata eclesiastica' de la Restauracion." Lexis:
Caudet, Francisco. "Fortunata y Jacinta: El 'naturalismo Revista de Linguistica y Literatura. 24.2 ( 2000): 283-301.
espiritual'." Textos y contextos de Galdos. Ed. John W. Kronik and De Gregorio Cabellos, Alicia. "El proceso de conquista de
Harriet S. Turner Madrid: Castalia, 1994. 91-104. una voz por Fortunata en Fortunata y Jacinta de Benito Perez
Ciplijauskaite, Birute. "El lenguaje de la rebeldia." Textos Galdos." San Antonio de Bexar y el Hispanismo. Ed. Maria Jesus
y contextos de Galdos. Ed. John W. Kronik and Harriet S. Turner Mayans Natal (No place): Asociacion de Licenciados y Doctores
Madrid: Castalia, 1994. 185-88. Espanoles en Estados Unidos, 2004. 103-24.
Constantini, Guillermina I. "La Restauracion vencedora: de Gregorio, Alicia. "Seres de palabra en Fortunata y
Un caso de narracion interior en Fortunata y Jacinta." Filologia. Jacinta: Una aproximacion bakhtiniana a Galdos." Dissertation
28.1-2 ( 1995): 173-79. Abstracts International. 56.10 (Apr. 1996): 3988A.
Copeland, Eva Maria. "Varones y degenerados: The del Pino, Jose Manuel. "El fracaso de los sistemas de
Construction of Masculinity in the Spanish Nineteenth-Century orden en el cierre de Fortunata y Jacinta." Revista Hispanica
Social Hygiene Movement and in Three Novels by Benito Perez Moderna. 44.2 (Dec. 1991): 207-16.
Galdos." Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: The Delgado-Jenkins, Humberto. "El tres de Galdos en
Humanities and Social Sciences. 65.4 (Oct. 2004): 1389. Fortunata y Jacinta." Explicacion de Textos Literarios. 2.( 1973):
Cornbleet, Edward Lehr. "Nuns in the Novels of Galdos." 61-66.
Dissertation Abstracts International. 45.2 (Aug. 1984): 536A. Diez-Alonso, Andres A. "Estructuralismo y realismo
Chamberlin, Vernon A. "A Further Consideration of critico en Fortunata y Jacinta." Dissertation Abstracts: Section A.
Carnal Appetites in Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales Galdosianos. 20.2 Humanities and Social Science. 32.( 1971): 2681A-82A(Ind.).
( 1985): 51-59. Dorca, Toni. "El mundo al reves: Una lectura carnavalesca
Chamberlin, Vernon A. "Aristophanes' The Birds and the de Fortunata y Jacinta." Bulletin of Spanish Studies: Hispanic
Ornithological Tour de Force in Fortunata y Jacinta." Hispanic Studies and Researches on Spain, Portugal, and Latin America.
Review. 55.2 (Spring 1987): 165-80. 84.2 (Mar. 2007): 193-206.
Chamberlin, Vernon A. "Idealism versus Reality: Galdós's Eoff, Sherman. "The Treatment of Individual Personality
Critique of Platonism in Fortunata y Jacinta." Hispania: A Journal in Fortunata y Jacinta." Hispanic Review. 17.4 (Oct. 1949): 269-89.
Devoted to the Teaching of Spanish and Portuguese. 67.1 (Mar. Estebanez Calderon, Demetrio. "El lenguaje politico de
1984): 43-51. Galdos: 'Revolucion' y 'Restauracion' en Fortunata y Jacinta y en
Chamberlin, Vernon A. "Juan Valera and Galdos's los Episodios de la ultima serie." Boletin de la Biblioteca de
Characterization of Juanito Santa Cruz." Anales Galdosianos. 22.( Menendez Pelayo. 61.( 1985): 259-283.
1987): 25-31. Estebanez Calderon, Demetrio. "Naturaleza y sociedad:
Chamberlin, Vernon A. "Juan Valera y la caracterizacion Claves para una interpretacion de Fortunata y Jacinta." Textos y
de Juanito Santa Cruz en Fortunata y Jacinta." Actas del X contextos de Galdos. Ed. John W. Kronik and Harriet S. Turner
Congreso de la Asociacion de Hispanistas, I-IV. Ed. Antonio Madrid: Castalia, 1994. 81-90.
Vilanova, Josep Ma Bricall, and Elias L. Rivers Barcelona: Faulkner, Sally. "'Las alas cortadas': El genero y el espacio
Promociones y Pubs. Universitarias, 1992. II: 1237-41. en las adaptaciones al cine y a la television de Fortunata y Jacinta
Chamberlin, Vernon A. "New Insights Regarding the de Perez Galdos." Espacios de genero. Ed. Pilar Cuder Dominguez,
Creation and Character Delineation of Maxi Rubin and Placido Mar Gallego Duran, and Auxiliadora Perez Vides Seville, Spain:
Estupina in Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales Galdosianos. 36.( 2001): Alfar, 2005. 223-31. Coleccion Alfar/Universidad 129. Seville,
99-110. Spain:
Chamberlin, Vernon A. "No Annulment: Three Women Faulkner, Sally. "Literary Adaptations in Spanish
Characters of the Mid-1880s Confront the Problem of an Cinema." London, England: Tamesis, 2004. viii, 198 pp. Coleccion
Impossible Marriage (Manuel Cubas, Sawa, Galdos)." Tamesis: Serie A, Monografias 202. London, England:
Decimononica: Journal of Nineteenth Century Hispanic Cultural Fernandez, Alvaro. "Juegos estructurales galdosianos: La
Production. 4.2 (Summer 2007): 19-32. novela pitusiana en Fortunata y Jacinta." Filologia. 28.1-2 ( 1995):
Chamberlin, Vernon A. "Poor Max's Windmill: Aquatic 181-92.
Symbolism in Fortunata y Jacinta." Hispanic Review. 50.4 Fernandez, Joseph A. "Deformaciones populacheras en el
(Autumn 1982): 427-37. dialogo galdosiano." Anales Galdosianos. 13.( 1978): 111-119.
Chamberlin, Vernon A. "The First and Annotated, Fernández, María Soledad. "Estrategias de poder en el
Illustrated Edition of Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales Galdosianos. 16.( discurso realista: La Regenta y Fortunata y Jacinta." Hispania: A
1981): 133-136. Journal Devoted to the Teaching of Spanish and Portuguese. 75.2
Chamberlin, Vernon A. "The Importance of Goethe's Die (May 1992): 266-74.
Wahlverwandtschaften in the Creation of Galdós' Fortunata y Fierro M., Carmen Luisa. "Desconstruccion y
Jacinta." Hispanic Review. 54.4 (Autumn 1986): 443-55. construccion del discurso realista en Fortunata y Jacinta." Acta
Chamberlin, Vernon A. "The Perils of Interpreting Literaria. 8.( 1983): 87-98.
Fortunata's Dream." Anales Galdosianos. 34.( 1999): 113-24. Figueroa-Melendez, Manuel. "Dos viajes de novios:
Chamberlin, Vernon A. "The So-Called Problem of Galdos y Emilia Pardo Bazan ante un mismo topico literario."
Closure in Fortunata y Jacinta and Tristana Revisited By Means of Revista de Estudios Hispanicos. 17-18.(1990-1991): 55-63.
Musical Structure." Decimononica: Journal of Nineteenth Century Frank, Claudine. "Tragic Relief: An Intertextual Reading
Hispanic Cultural Production. 4.1 (Winter 2007): 12-22. of Galdós's Fortunata y Jacinta and Zola's La Joie de vivre."
Chamberlin, Vernon A., Kay Engler, Leo T. Hoar, Jr., Comparative Literature. 43.3 (Summer 1991): 209-29.
Walter T. Pattison, and B.J. Zeidner Bauml. "Benito Perez Galdos." Franz, Thomas R. "Galdos the Pharmacist: Drugs and the
Symposium. 24..( 1970): Samaniego Pharmacy in Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales Galdosianos.
Chamberlin, Vernon. "A New Version of Fortunata y 22.( 1987): 35-46.
Jacinta on the Spanish Stage: A Sesquicentenial Salute to Perez

49
Fuentes Peris, Teresa. "Drink and Social Stability: Perez Galdos (Fortunata y Jacinta, Part III, Chapter IV). Ed. Peter
Discourses of Power in Galdos' Fortunata y Jacinta." Bulletin of B. Goldman London: Tamesis, 1985. 95-145. Coleccion Tamesis,
Hispanic Studies. 73.1 (Jan. 1996): 63-77. Ser. A-Monogs. 90. London:
Fuentes Peris, Teresa. "Images of Filth: Representation of Goldman, Peter B. "Juanito's chuletas: Realism and
the Poor in 'Una visita al Cuarto Estado'." New Galdos Studies: Worldly Philosophy in Galdós's Fortunata y Jacinta." Journal of the
Essays in Memory of John Varey. Ed. Nicholas G. Round Midwest Modern Language Association. 18.1 (Spring 1985): 82-
Woodbridge, England: Tamesis, 2003. 59-72. Coleccion Tamesis: 101.
Serie A, Monografias 192. Woodbridge, England: Goldman, Peter B. "Las dos artes y el combinar de la vida:
Fuentes Peris, Teresa. "The Control of Prostitution and Sobre lenguaje, realismo y realidad en Fortunata y Jacinta." Actas
Filth in Fortunata y Jacinta: The Panoptic Strategy in the Convent del VIII Congreso de la Asociacion Internacional de Hispanistas, I.
of Las Micaelas." Anales Galdosianos. 31-32.(1996-1997): 35-52. Ed. A. David Kossoff, Jose Amor y Vazquez, Ruth H. Kossoff, and
Fuentes, Víctor. "El realismo integral de La Regenta y Geoffrey W. Ribbans Madrid: Istmo, 1986. 631-636.
Fortunata y Jacinta." Hispanic Review. 57.1 (Winter 1989): 43-56. Goldman, Peter B. "O maquina buena o mujer mala:
Fuentes, Victor. "La dimension mitico-simbolica de Vision determinista y conciencia temporal en Fortunata y Jacinta."
Fortunata." Anales Galdosianos. 22.( 1987): 47-52. Revista de Estudios Hispanicos. 21.3 (Oct. 1987): 67-91.
Galerstein, Carolyn. "El paisaje urbano de Fortunata y Goldman, Peter B. and Andres Villagra. "Personajes y
Jacinta." Cuadernos de Aldeeu. 1.2-3 (May-Oct. 1983): 249-257. transformaciones en Fortunata y Jacinta." Romance Quarterly. 39.1
Garcia Bolivar, Margarita. "Film Representation of (Feb. 1992): 61-70.
Galdos' Female Character in 'Nazarin' (1962), 'Tristana' (1969), Goldman, Peter B., Paul J. Hoff, and Neil A. Rice. "Being,
'Fortunata y Jacinta' (Film: 1969, television series: 1987) and 'El Doing, and Representing: Secondary Characters and Third-Rate
Abuelo' (1998)." Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: Fictions in Fortunata y Jacinta." Critica Hispanica. 13.1-2 ( 1991):
The Humanities and Social Sciences. 64.2 (Aug. 2003): 519. 87-97.
Garcia, Carlos Javier. "Tristana y Fortunata: Formulas Gomez-Perez, Ana. "La manipulacion de la naturaleza en
sociales y escision del personaje." Les Traites de savoir-vivre en Fortunata y Jacinta." Hispanofila. 133.(Sept. 2001): 17-30.
Espagne et au Portugal: Du moyen age a nos jours. Ed. Rose Gomis-Izquierdo, Vicente. "'Siempre hubo clases': Clases
Duroux Clermont-Ferrand: Assn. des Pub. de la Fac. des Lettres et medias y modernización en la literatura hispanica decimononica."
Sciences Humaines de Clermont-Ferrand, 1995. 323-30. Collection Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: The Humanities
Litteratures Clermont-Ferrand: and Social Sciences. 68.12 (June 2008): 5064-5065.
Gelz, Andreas. "Eine andere Geschichte der Moderne? Gonzalez Arias, Francisca. "Diario de un viaje: Las cartas
Der Skandal als Schlusselbegriff der spanischen Kulturgeschichte." de Emilia Pardo Bazan a Benito Perez Galdos." Textos y contextos
Psyche und Epochennorm. Ed. Henning Krauss, Christophe de Galdos. Ed. John W. Kronik and Harriet S. Turner Madrid:
Losfeld, Kathrin van der Meer, and Anke Wortmann Heidelberg, Castalia, 1994. 169-75.
Germany: Universitatsverlag Winter, 2005. 357-365. Studia Gonzalez Santana, Rosa Delia. "Solidaridad femenina en
Romanica 126. Heidelberg, Germany: Fortunata y Jacinta y Nana." Actas del IX Simposio de la Sociedad
Gilman, Stephen. "Feminine and Masculine Espanola de Literatura General y Comparada, I: La mujer: Elogio y
Consciousness in Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales Galdosianos. 17.( vituperio; II: La parodia; El viaje imaginario. Ed. Tua Blesa, Maria
1982): 63-70. Teresa Cacho, Carlos Garcia Gual, Mercedes Rolland, Leonardo
Gilman, Stephen. "La novela como dialogo: La Regenta y Romero Tobar, and Margarita Smerdou Altolaguirre, et al
Fortunata y Jacinta." Nueva Revista de Filologia Hispanica. 24.( Zaragoza, Spain: Universidad de Zaragoza, 1994. I: 189-98.
1975): 438-48. Granados, Pedro. "La novela como responso y elegia: La
Gilman, Stephen. "La palabra hablada y Fortunata y distribucion de lo lirico en Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales
Jacinta." Nueva Revista de Filologia Hispanica. 15.( 1961): 542- Galdosianos. 37.( 2002): 103-12.
560. Gullon, Agnes M. "Fortunata y Jacinta en ingles." Actas
Gilman, Stephen. "The Spoken Word and Fortunata and del Primer Congreso Internacional de Estudios Galdosianos. Las
Jacinta." Galdos. Ed. Jo Labanyi London: Longman, 1992. 57-76. Palmas: Excmo. Cabildo Insular de Gran Canaria, 1977. 376-81.
Modern Literatures in Perspective London: Gullon, Agnes Moncy. "Fortunata and Jacinta: A
Goetz, Lily Anne. "'Fortunata y Jacinta': A Narratological Polyphonic Novel." The Art of Translation: Voices from the Field.
Approach." Dissertation Abstracts International. 54.2 (Aug. 1993): Ed. Rosanna Warren Boston: Northeastern UP, 1989. 64-83.
546A. Gullon, German. "El subtexto de Fortunata y Jacinta."
Goetz, Lily Anne. "La Pitusa y la Delfina: The Role of Critica Hispanica. 13.1-2 ( 1991): 99-109.
Epithets in Fortunata y Jacinta." Revista de Estudios Hispanicos. Gullon, German. "Fortunata y Jacinta en el vertice de la
22.( 1995): 59-74. modernidad." Textos y contextos de Galdos. Ed. John W. Kronik
Gold, Hazel. "Problems of Closure in Fortunata y Jacinta: and Harriet S. Turner Madrid: Castalia, 1994. 195-209.
Of Narrators, Readers and Their Just Deserts/Desserts." Gullon, German. "Problemas del pluralismo critico: Perez
Neophilologus. 70.2 (Apr. 1986): 228-238. Galdos: Fortunata y Jacinta." Hispanic Review. 49.2 (Spring 1981):
Gold, Hazel. "Therapeutic Figures: The Body and Its 183-195.
Metaphors in Fortunata y Jacinta." A Sesquicentennial Tribute to Gullon, Ricardo. "Tecnicas de Galdos." Madrid: Taurus,
Galdos 1843-1993. Ed. Linda M. Willem Newark, DE: Juan de la 1980. 256 pp.
Cuesta, 1993. 72-87. Hispanic Monographs: Homenajes 8. Newark, Gutierrez, Lance Christian. "Figures of Addiction in
DE: Benito Perez Galdos." Dissertation Abstracts International, Section
Goldman, Peter B. "'Cada peldano tenia su historia': A: The Humanities and Social Sciences. 64.12 (June 2004): 4487.
Conciencia historica y conciencia social en Fortunata y Jacinta." Hart, Stephen. "Galdos's Fortunata y Jacinta: An
Galdos y la historia. Ed. Peter Bly Ottawa: Dovehouse, 1988. 145- 'Inoffensive Hen'." Forum for Modern Language Studies. 22.4 (Oct.
165. Ottawa Hispanic Studies 1. Ottawa: 1986): 342-353.
Goldman, Peter B. "El trabajo digestivo del espiritu: Sobre Herrero, Javier. "El manton de Manila contra el sombrero
la estructura de Fortunata y Jacinta y la funcion de Segismundo de copa: Indumentaria y comida en Fortunata y Jacinta." Ideas en
Ballester." Romance Quarterly. 31.2 ( 1984): 177-187. sus paisajes: Homenaje al profesor Russell P. Sebold. Ed.
Goldman, Peter B. "Feijoo and the Failed Revolution: A Guillermo Carnero, Ignacio Javier Lopez, and Enrique Rubio
Dialectical Inquiry into Fortunata y Jacinta and the Poetics of Alicante, Spain: Universidad de Alicante, 1999. 255-62.
Ambiguity." Conflicting Realities: Four Readings of a Chapter by

50
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

Hoddie, James H. "Fortunata y Jacinta and the Eroica." Larsen, Kevin S. "The Medical Background of Fortunata y
Anales Galdosianos. 14.( 1979): 133-139. Jacinta: The Case of Maxi's Migraines." Ometeca. 3-4.( 1996):
Hoddie, James H. "Need, Honor, and Romance in 410-25.
Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales Galdosianos. 20.2 ( 1985): 39-50. Larsen, Kevin. "El trasfondo medico de Fortunata y
Holmberg, Arthur Carl. "Louis Lambert and Maximiliano Jacinta: El caso de las Jaquecas de Maxi Rubin." Ometeca. 3-4.(
Rubín: The Inner Vision and the Outer Man." Hispanic Review. 1996): 426-38.
46.2 (Spring 1978): 119-36. Lassaletta, Manuel C. "Algunos coloquialismos en el
Holmberg, Arthur. "Balzac and Galdós: 'Comment aiment lenguaje de Galdós: Un estudio del verbo 'hablar' en 'Fortunata y
les filles?'." Comparative Literature. 29.2 (Spring 1977): 109-23. Jacinta'." Hispania: A Journal Devoted to the Teaching of Spanish
Ilie, Paul. "Fortunata's Dream: Freud and the Unconscious and Portuguese. 54.4 (Dec. 1971): 907-14.
in Galdos." Anales Galdosianos. 33.( 1998): 13-100. Lewis, Thomas E. "Fortunata y Jacinta: Galdós and the
Jackson, Edith Moss. "Myth and Meaning: A Paradigmatic Production of the Literary Referent." MLN. 96.2 (Mar. 1981): 316-
Analysis of Galdos' 'Fortunata y Jacinta'." Dissertation Abstracts 39.
International. 50.1 (July 1989): 157A. Ley, Charles David. "Novelas sobre dos mujeres:
Jagoe, Catherine. "The Subversive Angel in Fortunata y Fortunata y Jacinta y Vanity Fair." Actas del Tercer Congreso
Jacinta." Anales Galdosianos. 24.( 1989): 79-91. Internacional de Estudios Galdosianos, II. Las Palmas: Excmo.
Javier Lopez, Ignacio. "El poder de Pigmalion: Galdos y la Cabildo Insular de Gran Canaria, 1990. 101-112.
creacion del personaje." Insula: Revista de Letras y Ciencias Lippenholtz, Betina. "Fortunata y Jacinta de Benito Perez
Humanas. 48.561 (Sept. 1993): 9-11. Galdos, ¿una novela romantica o un folletin realista?." Filologia.
Kattan, Olga. "Madrid en Fortunata y Jacinta y en La 28.1-2 ( 1995): 203-08.
lucha por la vida: Dos posturas." Cuadernos Hispanoamericanos: Lopez Landy, Ricardo. "El espacio novelesco en Galdos:
Revista Mensual de Cultura Hispanica. 250-52.(1970-1971): 546- Un estudio de Dona Perfecta y Fortunata y Jacinta." Dissertation
78. Abstracts: Section A. Humanities and Social Science. 37.( 1977):
King, Sarah E. "Food Imagery in Fortunata y Jacinta." 5170A-71A.
Anales Galdosianos. 18.( 1983): 79-88. Lopez-Baralt, Mercedes. "Fortunata y Jacinta en
Kirsner, Robert. "Esclavitud y rebeldia en Fortunata y gestacion: De la version alpha a la version beta del manuscrito
Jacinta." Actas del Sexto Congreso Internacional de Hispanistas galdosiano." Anales Galdosianos. 22.( 1987): 11-24.
celebrado en Toronto del 22 al 26 agosto de 1977. Ed. Alan M. Lopez-Baralt, Mercedes. "Fortunata y Jacinta segun
Gordon, Evelyn Rugg, and Rafael Lapesa Toronto: Dept. of Sp. & television espanola: La lectura cinematografica del clasico
Port., Univ. of Toronto, 1980. 423-425. galdosiano por Mario Camus." Anales Galdosianos. 27-28.(1992-
Kirsner, Robert. "Galdós' Attitude towards Spain as Seen 1993): 93-107.
in the Characters of Fortunata y Jacinta." PMLA: Publications of Lopez-Baralt, Mercedes. "'Lo que una suena tiene su
the Modern Language Association of America. 66.2 (Mar. 1951): aquel': La exploracion del inconsciente en Fortunata y Jacinta."
124-37. Nueva Revista de Filologia Hispanica. 35.1 ( 1987): 151-170.
Kirsner, Robert. "Honradez, matrimonio y cortesania en Lopez-Baralt, Mercedes. "'Meeting Venus': Sobre
Fortunata y Jacinta." Studies in Language and Literature. Ed. Fortunata y Eros (a proposito de una lectura reciente del clasico
Charles Nelson Richmond: Dept. of Foreign Langs., Eastern galdosiano)." Anales Galdosianos. 34.( 1999): 125-33.
Kentucky Univ., 1976. 301-04. López-Baralt, Mercedes. "Sueños de mujeres: La voz del
Krauel, Ricardo. "Duplicidad significativa de las 'ánima' en Fortunata y Jacinta de Galdós." Hispanic Review. 55.4
representaciones de ambiguedad sexual en Fortunata y Jacinta." (Autumn 1987): 491-512.
Bulletin of Hispanic Studies. 76.5 (Dec. 1999): 649-72. Lopez-Herrera, Francisco D. "Fortunata y Jacinta de
Krauel, Ricardo. "La sinrazon de la razon: Revision de la Galdos, documento historico del siglo XIX." La Chispa '81:
cordura en Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales Galdosianos. 31-32.(1996- Selected Proceedings, February 26-28, 1981. Ed. Gilbert Paolini
1997): 13-33. New Orleans: Tulane Univ., 1981. 181-189.
Kronik, John W. "Feijoo and the Fabrication of Lopez-Herrera, Francisco D. "La historia y las clases
Fortunata." Conflicting Realities: Four Readings of a Chapter by sociales en Fortunata y Jacinta." Dissertation Abstracts: Section A.
Perez Galdos: (Forrtunata y Jacinta, Part III, Chapter IV). Ed. Peter Humanities and Social Science. 34.( 1974): 4270A(Fla. State).
B. Goldman London: Tamesis, 1985. 39-72. Coleccion Tamesis, Lopez-Herrera, Francisco D. "La madre galdosiana en
Ser. A-Monogs. 90. London: Fortunata y Jacinta." Cuadernos de Aldeeu. 4.2 (Nov. 1988): 151-
Kronik, John W. "Fortunata y la palabra." Actas del Tercer 160.
Congreso Internacional de Estudios Galdosianos, II. Las Palmas: Luengo, Enrique. "El concepto de novela e historia en
Excmo. Cabildo Insular de Gran Canaria, 1990. 553-565. Fortunata y Jacinta de Benito Perez Galdos." Hispanic Journal.
Kronik, John W. "Galdosian Reflections: Feijoo and the 12.1 (Spring 1991): 17-25.
Fabrication of Fortunata." MLN. 97.2 (Mar. 1982): 272-310. Macklin, J. J. "B. Perez Galdos: Fortunata and Jacinta
Krow-Lucal, Martha G. "El personaje recurrente en la obra (1886-87)." The Monster in the Mirror: Studies in Nineteenth-
de Galdos." Textos y contextos de Galdos. Ed. John W. Kronik and Century Realism. Ed. David Anthony Williams Oxford: Oxford UP
Harriet S. Turner Madrid: Castalia, 1994. 157-61. for Univ. of Hull, 1978. 179-203. University of Hull Publications
Labanyi, Jo. "Adultery and the Exchange Economy." Madrigal, Dennis. "'Ab ovo usque ad mala': Fortunata y
Scarlet Letters: Fictions of Adultery from Antiquity to the 1990s. Jacinta como banquete literario." La %STorre: Revista de la
Ed. Nicholas White and Naomi Segal Basingstoke, England: Universidad de Puerto Rico. 8.30 (Apr-May 1994): 227-37.
Macmillan, 1997. 98-108. Marias, Julian. "'Fortunata y Jacinta'." ABC (Internat.
Labanyi, Jo. "Galateas in Revolt: Women and Self- Ed.). 38.1945 (Apr. 8-14 1987): 3.
Making in the Late Nineteenth-Century Spanish Novel." Women: Marquez Villanueva, Francisco. "Notas sobre el
A Cultural Review. 10.1 (Spring 1999): 87-96. manuscrito de Fortunata y Jacinta." Textos y contextos de Galdos.
Larsen, Kevin S. "'El caso de Mauricia debe de Ed. John W. Kronik and Harriet S. Turner Madrid: Castalia, 1994.
examinarse detenidamente': Aspectos medicos de un personaje de 141-45.
Fortunata y Jacinta." Torre: Revista de la Universidad de Puerto Maurice, Jacques. "Sobre dos capitulos de Fortunata y
Rico. 3.9 (July-Sept 1998): 615-36. Jacinta: El 'naturalismo espiritual' en el texto." Pensamiento y
literatura en Espana en el siglo XIX: Idealismo, positivismo,
espiritualismo. Ed. Yvan Lissorgues and Gonzalo Sobejano

51
Toulouse, France: PU du Mirail, 1998. 179-88. Collection Ramos, Carlos. "Ciudades en mente: El dialogo interior-
Hesperides-Espagne Toulouse, France: exterior en Fortunata y Jacinta." Ciudades vivas/ciudades muertas:
Maza Sancho, Ana Maria. "El lenguaje de personajes en Espacios urbanos en la literatura y el folklore hispanicos. Ed. K. M.
Fortunata y Jacinta." Revista Chilena de Literatura. 27-28.(Apr. Sibbald, Ricardo de la Fuente Ballesteros, and J. Diaz Valladolid,
1986): 173-185. Spain: Universitas Castellae, 1999. 329-37. Coleccion 'Cultura
Meehan, Thomas Clarke. "A Formal Analysis of Fortunata Iberoamericana' 4. Valladolid, Spain:
y Jacinta: A Study in the Long Novel Form." Dissertation Randolph, E. Dale A. "A Source for Maxi Rubén in
Abstracts. 26.( 1966): 7321-7322. 'Fortunata y Jacinta'." Hispania: A Journal Devoted to the Teaching
Menendez Onrubia, Carmen. "Historia y familia en of Spanish and Portuguese. 51.1 (Mar. 1968): 49-56.
Fortunata y Jacinta." Textos y contextos de Galdos. Ed. John W. Ribbans, Geoffrey and J. E. Varey. "Dos novelas de
Kronik and Harriet S. Turner Madrid: Castalia, 1994. 105-14. Galdos: 'Dona Perfecta' y 'Fortunata y Jacinta': Guia de lectura."
Moncy Gullon, Agnes. "The Bird Motif and the Madrid: Castalia, 1988. 235 pp.
Introductory Motif: Structure in Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales Ribbans, Geoffrey. "Dos paseos de Fortunata por Madrid
Galdosianos. 9.( 1974): 51-75. y su integración dentro de la estructura de la novela." Hispania: A
Navarro Adriaensens, Jose M. "Registros sociolinguisticos Journal Devoted to the Teaching of Spanish and Portuguese. 70.4
en la caracterizacion de personajes en Fortunata y Jacinta." Textos (Dec. 1987): 740-45.
y contextos de Galdos. Ed. John W. Kronik and Harriet S. Turner Ribbans, Geoffrey. "El caracter de Mauricia 'la Dura' en la
Madrid: Castalia, 1994. 127-34. estructura de Fortunata y Jacinta." Actas del Quinto Congreso
Navarro Tomas, T. "La entonacion en Fortunata y Jacinta, Internacional de Hispanistas. Ed. Maxime Chevalier, Francois
de Perez Galdos." Homenaje a Angel Rosenblat en sus 70 Lopez, Joseph Perez, and Noel Salomon Bordeaux: PU de
anos:Estudios filologicos y linguisticos.. Ed. Maria Josefina Tejera Bordeaux, 1977. 713-21.
Caracas: Inst. Pedagogico, 1974. 365-76. Ribbans, Geoffrey. "El papel de Segismundo Ballester en
Neuschafer, H. J. "Apuntes para una historia social del Fortunata y Jacinta." La %STorre: Revista de la Universidad de
naturalismo espanol: La imagen del pueblo desde Galdos hasta Puerto Rico. 2.5 ( 1988): 103-111.
Blasco Ibanez." Actas del Sexto Congreso Internacional de Ribbans, Geoffrey. "En torno al pluralismo critico:
Hispanistas celebrado en Toronto del 22 al 26 agosto de 1977. Ed. Fortunata y Jacinta." Critica semiologica de textos literarios
Alan M. Gordon, Evelyn Rugg, and Rafael Lapesa Toronto: Dept. hispanicos. Ed. Miguel Angel Garrido Gallardo Madrid: Consejo
of Sp. & Port., Univ. of Toronto, 1980. 519-522. Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1986. 381-388.
Oropesa, Salvador A. "Identidad y consumo de elite en Ribbans, Geoffrey. "Feijoo: Policeman, Inventor, Egotist,
Romanticismo (2001) de Manuel Longares: Fortunata y Jacinta Failure?." Anales Galdosianos. 22.( 1987): 71-87.
(1886-87) en la transicion espanola." Monographic Review/Revista Ribbans, Geoffrey. "Interpreting Galdos' Fortunata."
Monografica. 19.( 2003): 83-96. Bulletin of Spanish Studies: Hispanic Studies and Researches on
Oropesa, Salvador. "El concepto de comercio total en Spain, Portugal, and Latin America. 82.3-4 (May-June 2005): 447-
Fortunata y Jacinta (1886-87) de Benito Perez Galdos." Hispanic 63.
Journal. 26.1-2 (Spring-Fall 2005): 77-89. Ribbans, Geoffrey. "Notes on the Narrator in Fortunata y
Ortiz Armengol, Pedro. "El convento de las Micaelas en Jacinta." A Sesquicentennial Tribute to Galdos 1843-1993. Ed.
Fortunata y Jacinta." Estafeta Literaria: Revista Quincenal de Linda M. Willem Newark, DE: Juan de la Cuesta, 1993. 88-104.
Libros, Artes y Espetaculos. 550.( 1974): 4-7. Hispanic Monographs: Homenajes 8. Newark, DE:
Ortiz Armengol, Pedro. "Hacia un texto depurado de Ribbans, Geoffrey. "Perez Galdos: Fortunata y Jacinta."
Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales Galdosianos. 23.( 1988): 109-16. London: Grant & Cutler, 1977. 126 pp.
Ortiz Armengol, Pedro. "La opinion de Unamuno sobre Ribbans, Geoffrey. "Social Document or Narrative
Fortunata y Jacinta." Textos y contextos de Galdos. Ed. John W. Discourse? Some Comments on Recent Aspects of Galdos
Kronik and Harriet S. Turner Madrid: Castalia, 1994. 135-40. Criticism." Galdos' House of Fiction. Ed. A. H. Clarke and E. J.
Ortiz Armengol, Pedro. "Relojes y tiempo en Fortunata y Rodgers Llangrannog: Dolphin, 1991. 55-83.
Jacinta: Cronologia de una novela de Galdos." (Las Palmas): Rigoni, Mirtha L. "Reflexiones sobre la novela en
Cabildo Insular de Gran Canaria, 1978. 89 pp. Fortunata y Jacinta y en La desheredada de Benito Perez Galdos."
Palomo, Maria del Pilar. "El articulo costumbrista y La Filologia. 28.1-2 ( 1995): 193-202.
fontana de oro." Textos y contextos de Galdos. Ed. John W. Kronik Rodero, Jesus. "Fortunata y Jacinta: Heteroglosia y
and Harriet S. Turner Madrid: Castalia, 1994. 39-54. polifonia en el discurso del narrador." Anales Galdosianos. 29-
Perez, Francisco. "Dos novelistas galdosianos." Critica 30.(1994-1995): 75-85.
Hispanica. 3.2 ( 1981): 165-171. Rodriguez Puertolas, Julio. "Fortunata y Jacinta, novela
Perez-Bernardo, Maria Luisa. "Honeymoon Travel libertaria." Actas del Tercer Congreso Internacional de Estudios
Narratives in the Writings of Emilia Pardo Bazan ('Un viaje de Galdosianos, II. Las Palmas: Excmo. Cabildo Insular de Gran
novios' and Selected Short Stories) and Benito Perez Galdos Canaria, 1990. 187-196.
('Fortunata y Jacinta')." Dissertation Abstracts International, Rodriguez Puertolas, Julio. "'Quien manda, manda': La ley
Section A: The Humanities and Social Sciences. 68.4 (Oct. 2007): y el orden en Fortunata y Jacinta." Textos y contextos de Galdos.
1480. Ed. John W. Kronik and Harriet S. Turner Madrid: Castalia, 1994.
Pitol, Sergio. "Fortunata y Jacinta." Palabra y el Hombre: 115-25.
Revista de la Universidad Veracruzana. 100.(Oct-Dec 1996): 15- Rodriguez, Alfred and Jerry Gurule. "The Birth of
21. Fortunata's Child: Galdosian Optimism?." Romance Notes. 27.1
Pujol, Ton. "Galdos: Tres finales metaficticios." Ariel. 9.2 (Autumn 1986): 21-25.
( 1994): 25-54. Rodriguez, Alfred. "La Jacinta de Galdos y la gestacion de
Quispe-Agnoli, Rocio. "De la mujer caida al angel Fortunata y Jacinta." Iris. 1.( 1988): 107-112.
subvertido en Fortunata y Jacinta: Las funciones ambivalentes de Rodriguez-Puertolas, Julio. "La clase dominante y su
Mauricia la Dura." Bulletin of Hispanic Studies. 75.3 (July 1998): papel en Fortunata y Jacinta." Actas del Quinto Congreso
337-54. Internacional de Hispanistas. Ed. Maxime Chevalier, Francois
Ràfols, Wifredo de. "El metalenguaje en Tormento y Lopez, Joseph Perez, and Noel Salomon Bordeaux: PU de
Fortunata y Jacinta." Hispanic Review. 58.4 (Autumn 1990): 469- Bordeaux, 1977. 735-42.
86.

52
Fortunata y Jacinta 1886-87

Romero Perez, Francisco. "Abnormality as Revealed in a Turner, Harriet S. "Family Ties and Tyrannies: A
Structural Analysis of Galdos' Fortunata y Jacinta." Discurso: Reassessment of Jacinta." Hispanic Review. 51.1 (Winter 1983): 1-
Revista de Estudios Iberoamericanos. 10.1 ( 1992): 137-50. 22.
Romero Perez, Francisco. "The Grandeur of Galdos' Turner, Harriet S. "Fortunata and Jacinta." Cambridge,
Mauricia La Dura." Hispanic Journal. 3.1 (Fall 1981): 107-114. Eng.: Cambridge UP, 1992. xix, 122 pp. Landmarks of World
Romero Tobar, Leonardo. "De nuevo sobre el motivo Literature Cambridge, Eng.:
ornitológico en Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales Galdosianos. 40- Turner, Harriet S. "La verdad metaforica en Fortunata y
41.(2005-2006): 67-72. Jacinta." La %STorre: Revista de la Universidad de Puerto Rico.
Romo Martinez, C. Virginia. "Las dos orillas: Cecilia y 3.10 (Apr. 1989): 185-203.
Fortunata." Verba Hispanica. 9.( 2001): 133-44. Turner, Harriet S. "Metaphor and Metonymy in Galdós
Rosales, Elisa. "Las buenas conciencias: El anacronismo and Tolstoy." Hispania: A Journal Devoted to the Teaching of
decimononico de Carlos Fuentes." Lucero: A Journal of Iberian and Spanish and Portuguese. 75.4 (Oct. 1992): 884-96.
Latin American Studies. 9.(Spring 1998): 56-62. Turner, Harriet S. "Patterns of Deception in the Galdos
Round, Nicholas G. "Villaamil's Three Lives." Bulletin of Novel." Anales Galdosianos. 21.( 1986): 161-77.
Hispanic Studies. 63.1 (Jan. 1986): 19-32. Turner, Harriet S. "Strategies in Narrative Point of View:
Rubio Cremades, Enrique. "Los relatos breves de Galdos." On Meaning and Morality in the Galdos Novel." Homenaje a
Textos y contextos de Galdos. Ed. John W. Kronik and Harriet S. Antonio Sanchez Barbudo: Ensayos de literatura espanola
Turner Madrid: Castalia, 1994. 67-78. moderna. Ed. Benito Brancaforte, Edward R. Mulvihill, Roberto G.
Schraibman, José. "Los sueños en Fortunata y Jacinta." Sanchez, and John Crispin Madison: Dept. of Span. & Port., Univ.
Insula: Revista de Letras y Ciencias Humanas. 25.166 ( 1962): 1, of Wisconsin, 1981. 61-77.
12. Turner, Harriet S. "The Poetics of Suffering in Galdos and
Schraibman, Jose. "Una parodia de una parodia: Juanito Tolstoy." Studies in Honor of Gilberto Paolini. Ed. Mercedes Vidal
Santa Cruz y Moreno Isla." Revista de Filologia de la Universidad Tibbitts and Claire J. Paolini Newark, DE: Cuesta, 1996. 229-42.
de La Laguna. 1.( 1982): 7-12. Homenajes 12. Newark, DE:
Sierra, Sarah Parker-Hunt. "Nineteenth-Century Folklore Turner, Harriet. "'Tornasoles de belleza': On Beauty and
Studies and Benito Perez Galdos." Dissertation Abstracts Its Representations in Galdos's Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales
International, Section A: The Humanities and Social Sciences. 66.9 Galdosianos. 36.( 2001): 269-83.
(Mar. 2006): 3324. Ugarte, Michael. "New Historicism and Galdos's
Sinnigen, John H. "Crisis sociales y psicosexuales." Fortunata: A Reading of the History of Madrid." RLA: Romance
Insula: Revista de Letras y Ciencias Humanas. 48.561 (Sept. 1993): Languages Annual. 2.( 1990): 569-74.
31-32. Ugarte, Michael. "New Historicism and the Story of
Sinnigen, John H. "Fortunata y Jacinta y la novela realista: Madrid: Fortunata y Jacinta and Tiempo de silencio." Anales
Transformacion social e identidad individual." Textos y contextos Galdosianos. 25.( 1990): 45-52.
de Galdos. Ed. John W. Kronik and Harriet S. Turner Madrid: Ugarte, Michael. "New Historicism and the Story of
Castalia, 1994. 189-92. Mardid: Fortunata y Jacinta and Tiempo de silencio." Anales
Sinnigen, John H. "Individual, Class and Society in Galdosianos. 25.( 1990): 45-52.
Fortunata and Jacinta." Galdos. Ed. Jo Labanyi London: Longman, Ullman, Joan Connelly and George H. Allison. "Galdos as
1992. 116-39. Modern Literatures in Perspective London: Psychiatrist in Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales Galdosianos. 9.( 1974):
Sinnigen, John H. "Individual, Class, and Society in 7-36.
Fortunata y Jacinta." Galdos Studies II. Ed. Robert J. Weber Urbina, Eduardo. "Mesias y redentores: Constante
London: Tamesis, 1974. 49-68. estructural y motivo tematico en Fortunata y Jacinta." Bulletin
Sinnigen, John H. "Sexo y clase social en Fortunata y Hispanique. 83.3-4 (July-Dec. 1981): 379-389.
Jacinta: Opresion, represion, expresion." Anales Galdosianos. 22.( Utt, Roger L. "'El Pajaro volo': Observaciones sobre un
1987): 53-70. leitmotif en Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales Galdosianos. 9.( 1974):
Smith, Alan. "La imaginacion galdosiana y la cervantina." 37-50.
Textos y contextos de Galdos. Ed. John W. Kronik and Harriet S. Valis, Noel M. "El flin flan de la novela: Leyendo
Turner Madrid: Castalia, 1994. 163-67. Fortunata y Jacinta." ABC Lit.. (14 Feb. 1987):
Sobejano, Gonzalo. "Muerte del solitario: Benito Perez Valis, Noel. "Reading the Nineteenth-Century Spanish
Galdos: Fortunata y Jacinta, 41, II, 6." El comentario de textos, 3: Novel: Selected Essays." Newark, DE: Juan de la Cuesta, 2005.
La novela realista. Ed. Andres Amoros Madrid: Castalia, 1979. 372 pp. Juan de la Cuesta Hispanic Monographs Newark, DE:
203-54. Literatura y sociedad 21. Valis, Noel. "Romanticism, Realism, and the Presence of
Stern, J. P. "Fortunata y Jacinta in the Context of the Word." Media, Consciousness, and Culture: Explorations of
European Realism." Textos y contextos de Galdos. Ed. John W. Walter Ong's Thought. Ed. Bruce E. Gronbeck, Thomas J. Farrell,
Kronik and Harriet S. Turner Madrid: Castalia, 1994. 17-36. Paul A. Soukup, and James W. Carey Newbury Park, CA: Sage,
Tarrio Varela, Anxo. "Fortunata y Jacinta, una escritura 1991. 90-102. Communication and Human Values Newbury Park,
arriesgada." Insula: Revista de Letras y Ciencias Humanas. 41.473 CA:
(Apr. 1986): 1, 14. Valis, Noel. "Romanticism, Realism, and the Presence of
Tsuchiya, Akiko. "'Las Micaelas por fuera y por dentro': the Word." Media, Consciousness, and Culture: Explorations of
Discipline and Resistance in Fortunata y Jacinta." A Walter Ong's Thought. Ed. Bruce E. Gronbeck, Thomas J. Farrell,
Sesquicentennial Tribute to Galdos 1843-1993. Ed. Linda M. Paul A. Soukup, and James W. Carey Newbury Park, CA: Sage,
Willem Newark, DE: Juan de la Cuesta, 1993. 56-71. Hispanic 1991. 90-102. Communication and Human Values Newbury Park,
Monographs: Homenajes 8. Newark, DE: CA:
Tsuchiya, Akiko. "Maxi and the Signs of Madness: Vilaros, Teresa M. "Ingestion, digestion y eliminacion:
Reading as Creation in Fortunata y Jacinta." Hispanic Review. 56.1 Jacinta, Fortunata y la avidez masculina." Critica Hispanica. 13.1-2
(Winter 1988): 53-71. ( 1991): 111-25.
Turner, Harriet S. "Balancing exactitud and belleza: Vilaros, Teresa M. "La apropiacion del cuerpo femenino:
Galdos's Theoretical Equation for Realism in Fortunata y Jacinta." Usura y avaricia en Fortunata y Jacinta." Romance Quarterly. 39.1
A Sesquicentennial Tribute to Galdos 1843-1993. Ed. Linda M. (Feb. 1992): 71-79.
Willem Newark, DE: Juan de la Cuesta, 1993. 105-20. Hispanic
Monographs: Homenajes 8. Newark, DE:

53
Vilaros-Soler, Teresa Maria. "Feminidad y destruccion de
la feminidad en 'Fortunata y Jacinta' de Benito Perez Galdos."
Dissertation Abstracts International. 50.9 (Mar. 1990): 2921A.
Villar, Luis Manuel. "Teatralidad en Fortuata y Jacinta."
Discurso Literario: Revista de Temas Hispanicos. 2.2 ( 1985): 519-
539.
Vivero, Manuel. "Precisar la estructura social de Fortunata
y Jacinta." Filologia. 26.1-2 ( 1993): 301-23.
Welge, Jobst. "Nation, Genealogie und Geschichte in
Benito Perez Galdos' Fortunata y Jacinta." Romanistisches
Jahrbuch. 57.( 2006): 378-402.
Whiston, James. "Determinism and Freedom in Fortunata
y Jacinta." Bulletin of Hispanic Studies. 57.( 1980): 113-27.
Whiston, James. "Jacinta y Fortunata, An Early Title for
Galdos's Masterpiece." Anales Galdosianos. 36.( 2001): 285-98.
Whiston, James. "Language and Situation in Part I of
Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales Galdosianos. 7.( 1972): 79-91.
Whiston, James. "The Materialism of Life: Religion in
Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales Galdosianos. 14.( 1979): 65-81.
Whiston, James. "The Practice of Realism: Change and
Creativity in the Manuscript of Galdos's Fortunata y Jacinta."
Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell UP, 2004. 279 pp.
Whiston, James. "The Struggle for Life in Fortunata y
Jacinta." The %SModern Language Review. 79.1 (Jan. 1984): 77-
87.
Willem, Linda M. "Jacinta's 'Vista al cuarto estado': The
Galley Version." Anales Galdosianos. 31-32.(1996-1997): 97-103.
Willem, Linda M. "Latent Narratives: Sideshadowing in
Fortunata y Jacinta." Anales Galdosianos. 36.( 2001): 299-306.
Willem, Linda M. "Moreno-Isla's Unpublished Scene from
the Fortunata y Jacinta Galleys." Anales Galdosianos. 27-28.(1992-
1993): 179-83.
Wright, Chad C. "Fortunata under Construction: A Study
of 'Las Micaelas por fuera' and 'Las Micaelas por dentro'." RLA:
Romance Languages Annual. 4.( 1992): 649-55.
Wright, Chad C. "'Un millon de ojos': Vision, vigilancia y
encierro en Dona Perfecta." Textos y contextos de Galdos. Ed. John
W. Kronik and Harriet S. Turner Madrid: Castalia, 1994. 151-56.
Yanez, Maria-Paz. "Autores y lectores de un texto llamado
Fortunata." Actas Irvine-92, Asociacion Internacional de
Hispanistas, I: De historia, linguisticas, retoricas y poeticas; II: La
mujer y su representacion en las literaturas hispanicas; III:
Encuentros y desencuentros de culturas desde la edad media al
siglo XVIII; IV: Encuentros y desencuentros de culturas siglos XIX
y XX; V: Lecturas y relecturas de textos espanoles, latinamericanos
y US latinos. Ed. Juan Villegas Irvine: Univ. of California, 1994.
V: 252-63.
Zahareas, Anthony. "The Tragic Sense in Fortunata y
Jacinta." Symposium: A Quarterly Journal in Modern Foreign
Literatures. 19.( 1965): 38-49.

54

Anda mungkin juga menyukai