Pío Baroja’s The Tree of Knowledge: Analysis of Ideological Dialogue
Pío Baroja’s *The Tree of Knowledge*: A Deep Dive into Ideological Dialogue
Location of the Text Fragment
This fragment belongs to the work of Pío Baroja, The Tree of Knowledge. Literary critics have considered this work as one of his best. Apart from its autobiographical basis, it reflects the author’s thinking and worldview.
External Structure
True to his narrative style, Baroja presents a third-person narration with few but precise and descriptive brushstrokes. He substantiates the content in the dialogues of the characters.
Internal Structure
We are faced with a fundamentally ideological text. For this, the author uses the dialectical structure (dialogue) to contrast the views of Hurtado and his uncle (Iturrioz), who some critics believe represents Baroja’s own thoughts. In the fragment, we can distinguish two different parts, both in form and content:
- Part 1: Narrative and descriptive, it serves as an introduction to the dialogue, which is what matters to Baroja.
- Part 2: The dialogue that forms the backbone of the text and the underlying ideological approach.
Part One: Setting the Scene
When placing the action, Baroja does not dwell on a slow, narrative description. Instead, with a quick touch, he serves the narrative purpose: the presentation of the place without any frills. The description could not be more stark. As a faithful observer of reality, Baroja names objects and things without adjectives: the Guadarrama, the roof of the headquarters of the Mountain, the tower of Móstoles, the road to Extremadura, and windmills. Only with a specific brushstroke, impressionistic and modernist, does he speak of the green patches of the cemeteries of San Isidro and San Justo. But then, again, the simple enumeration: the two towers of Getafe and the hermitage of Los Ángeles. To give input to the dialogue, this part ends with a brief narrative outline.
Part Two: The Heart of the Matter – Dialogue and Ideology
The dialogue also begins with a short introduction. In it, we first see the greeting of the characters, then a minimal narration to explain what they are doing at that moment: one waters the plants, and the other discusses the particularities of their neighbors. This serves as a pretext for existential reflection. The dialogue serves to confront the thoughts of both characters, representing Baroja’s ideas. However, there are approaches that are not opposed but develop the central idea of the text: life as a struggle, as cruel hunting among people.
Hurtado provides the thesis of reflection (the lives of their neighbors) and Iturrioz opposes the antithesis, including all living beings in the struggle for existence. Hurtado, in his speech, questions his uncle’s view, replying that it is an anthropomorphic concept, that is, transferred from men to other beings. But at the same time, he compares their neighbors with them and denies something as human as the fight for life.
Iturrioz clarifies several concepts in his last speech:
- He equates the fight to the conflict, where there is always a winner and a loser. Baroja always said that only the strong survive, not the weak.
- He contrasts his nature, that of a spectator, like Baroja himself, who explained the life cycle, with the righteous man, who destroys the weak with impunity, believing he does well.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we can say that the text summarizes key aspects of Baroja’s vision of the world and life. We are facing an ideological statement where Baroja uses his characters as a pretext and a means of exposure. Therefore, the content is more important than the form. Baroja’s ideas have recognizable sources: the philosophy of Nietzsche, who was one of the novelist’s favorite philosophers. As for the form, it should be noted the perfect structure and dialectical development, the introduction, and the precision in the direct language. The author allows himself only minimal impressionistic notes on the landscape and the environment.