|
Historiographical studies of the May Revolution started in the second half of the 19th century in Argentina and have extended to modern day. All historiographical perspectives agree in considering the May Revolution as the turning point that gave birth to the modern nation of Argentina, and that the Revolution was unavoidable in 1810. The main topics of disagreement between Argentine historians are the specific weight of the diverse causes of the May Revolution, who were the leaders of it among the different involved parties, whenever there was popular support for it or not, and whenever the loyalty to the captive Spanish king Ferdinand VII was real or an elaborate masquerade to conceal pro-independence purposes. ==Factual concerns== Historians do not face many doubts or unknown details. The most important details were properly recorded at the time, and made available to the public by the Primera Junta as patriotic propaganda. Because of this, the different historical views on the topic differ on interpretations of the meanings, causes and consequences of the events rather than the accuracy of the depiction of the event themselves. The modern historical vision of the revolutionary events do not differ significantly from the contemporary ones. The only factual topics that remain unconfirmed are the quotes and speeches made at the Open Cabildo or the audience with Cisneros, as the quotes kept do not come from transcriptions or recordings but from memories wrote years later or from oral tradition. Another disputed topic is the existence or not of the Operations plan, a secret document allegedly written by Mariano Moreno and setting harsh way for the Primera Junta to achieve its goals. Supporters of it consider that it is coherent with the actions taken by the Junta, like the execution of Santiago de Liniers, while detractors consider it a literary forgery made by an enemy of the Revolution in order to harm its public image in Europe. It is a topic of discussion which were the reasons to create a Junta with Cisneros, instead of following the results of the open cabildo in the first place. Historian Diego Abad de Santillán considers that the formula responded to Benito Lue y Riega's proposal of keeping the Viceroy in power along with partners or attachments, even though it was defeated at the open cabildo vote. Abad de Santillán argues that this formula made the lobbyists believe they could contain the growing threat of revolution.〔Abad de Santillán, p. 410 (スペイン語:Los resultados del congreso general del 22 de mayo habían sido burlados y los cabildantes creyeron que había sido contenido de ese modo la revolución amenazante de la calle.) (英語:The results of the general congress of may 22 were ignored and the members of the Cabildo thought they had contained the threatening revolution of the streets.)〕 Félix Luna, on the other hand, considers that it was an effort to avoid further conflicts, by choosing a middle ground solution, conceding something to all involved parties. Cisneros would remain in office, but sharing the power with the criollos.〔Luna, ''Independencia...'', p. 34 (スペイン語:Por otra parte, en un evidente esfuerzo por evitar conflictos y suavizar los efectos de su resolución, el cuerpo capitular designó una Junta "de coalición". () Era una inteligente solución intermedia, pero el ambiente de Buenos Aires no era propicio para estas vías.) (英語:Besides, in a clear attempt to avoid conflicts and smooth the effects of the resolution, the capitular chapter designed a "coalition" Junta. () It was an intelligent middle-ground solution, but the mood of Buenos Aires was not prepared for that route.)〕 It is also unclear which person or group decided the members of the Primera Junta. Saavedra claims in his memoirs, as do liberal historians like Vicente Fidel López, that it was exclusively a product of the popular initiative.〔Scenna, p. 39〕 Others, such as historian Félix Luna, feel the proposal shows such a level of balance among the relevant political and ideological parties involved that it can't be considered as merely the result of an improvised popular initiative.〔Luna, ''Independencia...'', p. 39 (スペイン語:Las personalidades incluidas representaban con tanta nitidez las fuerzas políticas e ideológicas y los intereses en juego, que no puede suponerse fueron el fruto de una improvisación) (英語:The people included clearly represented the political and ideological forces and interests at stake, so that it can't be considered the fruit of an improvised initiative.)〕 The proposed President, Saavedra, made a decisive intervention in the revolution and had prestige among all parties involved. Juan José Paso, Manuel Belgrano, Juan José Castelli, and Mariano Moreno were lawyers influenced by the Age of Enlightenment, and the first three were former supporters of the Carlotist project. Juan Larrea and Domingo Matheu were peninsulars involved in commercial activities of some importance. Both of them were supporters of Martín de Álzaga, as was Moreno. Miguel de Azcuénaga was a military man with contacts in high society, and the priest Manuel Alberti represented the aspirations of the lower clergy. Miguel Angel Scenna points out in his book ''Las brevas maduras'' that "such balance could not have been the result of chance, or from influences from outside the local context, but of a compromise of the parties involved". Both authors deny the theory that the composition of the Junta may have been suggested by the British; there was no time for that, and there were no British people in Buenos Aires important enough to influence such matters.〔Luna, ''Independencia...'', p. 40 (スペイン語:Con ello se refutan, de paso, las infundadas versiones que de tiempo en tiempo han circulado en nuestra historiografía dando por posible que la Primera Junta haya sido producto de sugerencias británicas. Ni hubo tiempo para hacerlo ni había ningún inglés importante en Buenos Aires como para asumir semejante responsabilidad.) (英語:This would refute, incidentally, the unfounded versions that from time to time have circulated in our historiography, considering it possible for the Primera Junta to have been the product of British suggestions. There was no time to do so, and there was no notable Englishman in Buenos Aires to take on such a responsibility.)〕 Finally, the idea of the junta being chosen by the military is unlikely; despite the presence of Saavedra as president of the junta, it wasn't a military Junta; the majority of its members were civilians. Even more, it included Mariano Moreno, whose enmity with Saavedra dated from the failed mutiny of 1809.〔Scenna, p. 44-45〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Historiography of the May Revolution」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|