[In the following excerpt, Jaksić considers Bello's role as a political figure representing the interests of Latin America in England, examining his relationships with other notable Latin American political figures and authors, and his Spanish language journals, Biblioteca Americana and El Repertorio Americano.]

London in the 1820s became the hub of diplomatic, financial, and cultural transactions between Great Britain and the newly independent countries of Latin America. After the fall of Napoleon, Great Britain was unquestionably the leading power in the world. No longer needing to maintain an alliance with Spain, the British government gradually moved from a steadfast policy of neutrality to a pragmatic policy of limited recognition of those countries of Spanish America that appeared to have made some headway in the consolidation of their states, and which offered beneficial terms of trade. It was a cautious policy, but caution was limited to official circles. Financial circles, and the investing public, rushed to buy Latin American bonds in the first half of the 1820s.

Spanish Americans who had languished in oblivion in London during the previous decade now found themselves the center of attention. They actively sought to accelerate the process of recognition, and aggressively promoted a view of the New World as a continent of boundless riches. They were catapulted into action by the liberal revolution led by Major Rafael Riego in Spain in 1820. This event, known as Riego's pronunciamiento, or military coup, curbed Ferdinand VII's absolutist rule by forcing the monarch to govern under the terms of the Constitution of 1812. Turmoil in Spain, combined with patriot victories in Spanish America, all but assured the independence of the continent. Even after the second “restoration” of King Ferdinand in 1823, Spanish American exiles in London could confidently conclude that Spanish imperial rule was finished. Thus, they devoted themselves to promoting recognition of the nation-states in various publication ventures. In the process, they collaborated closely with the wave of Spanish liberals fleeing the reactionary rule of Ferdinand VII. Together, they attempted to build bridges between Europe and the emerging nations of Latin America. Andrés Bello, in London since 1810, was now at the center of diplomatic and cultural activities. He emerged as a leading voice in the interpretation of European foreign policy, as well as in the articulation of a Spanish American response to the new opportunities and challenges of independence. Bello not only closely observed the policies of British Foreign Secretary, and then Prime Minister George Canning (1822-1827), but also had a chance to both exchange diplomatic correspondence with him, and eventually to meet him on the occasion of the treaty celebrated between Great Britain and Gran Colombia in 1825.

George Canning is generally acknowledged as the architect of British recognition of Spanish American independence. He contributed to the enshrining of his role in this history with the now famous dictum pronounced in the House of Commons on December 12, 1826: “I called the New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old.” It is well worth remembering, however, that Lord Castlereagh, his predecessor (1812-1822), had already taken the substantial step of recognizing Spanish American flags in British ports in 1822. It is also important to remember that European politics dictated a British response to French—and Holy Alliance—intervention in Spain in 1823, which raised the perennial question of the status of Spanish America under the absolutist rule of Ferdinand VII. There was, in addition, the 1822 recognition by the United States of the independence of the republics to the south, and President James Monroe's warning against European intervention in December 1823. Although the United States was in no position to prevent any such intervention, it challenged European, including Russian interests in the Western Hemisphere.¹

Finally, it is important to remember that Canning actually delayed recognition of Spanish American independence in the hope that these countries would adopt monarchical institutions once they understood the signals coming from his office. Therefore, until 1824, when Canning could no longer delay recognition of independence, Spanish Americans concluded that there would be no British recognition without serious consideration of a monarchical political model.² As seen in Chapter 2, Bello's queries to Blanco White and his statements to Fr. Servando Teresa de Mier on constitutional monarchy represented a sensible reading of the intentions of official British policy. This was the policy that Bello tried to convey both officially and unofficially to various friends and Spanish American states.

Bello's role in Spanish American diplomacy was not a happy one, largely because the expectations of both Great Britain and Spanish America were so quickly and so painfully disappointed in the 1820s. But for a time, such expectations appeared to be realistic, and Bello and others allowed themselves, perhaps naively, to believe that the recognition of independence heralded a new era of world politics and civilization. Travelers went back and forth; books, articles, and reports provided abundant information about the new countries; trade and finance reached unprecedented levels. For a fleeting moment in the 1820s, Great Britain and Spanish America appeared poised to show that a new era had indeed begun. The illusion was soon to be dispelled.

THE CULTURAL OFFENSIVE

Aware that the tide was slowly turning in the direction, or at least the possibility, of a patriot victory, Spanish Americans in London in the early 1820s launched a series of efforts to spread news and information about the prospects and promise of an independent Latin America. As we have seen, Bello had already served as one of the primary sources of news on South American affairs since 1810. He had provided information to Blanco White and James Mill, and his work on the English-language publications Interesting Official Documents Relating to the United Provinces of Venezuela, and Outline of the Revolution in Spanish America are a clear indication of this side of his activity. The political climate of the 1820s was even more conducive to the placing of news, because the emergence of the new republics generated strong demand for information about the New World.

By inclination as well as a sense of duty, Bello became actively involved in the publication of Spanish-language materials in the 1820s. His purpose was to make information available in London, and also to distribute it to the new countries of Spanish America at a time when they were more likely to learn about one another from London, effectively the capital of the world, than directly from each other. The three journals to which Bello contributed allowed him not only to publish the results of his own research, but also to bring the dimension of culture into the emerging definitions of independence and nationhood. These journals were committed to the spreading of useful information, but they had a political purpose as well.³

Such a political purpose was clearest in El Censor Americano, a journal published by Antonio José de Irisarri in London in 1820. The journal openly advocated constitutional monarchy, an advocacy that few wanted to maintain, or even remember, by the middle of the decade, but which was very much a reasonable option at the time. Bello did not sign any articles in this periodical, but his participation in it was established by Irisarri himself, who on June 16, 1820, invited Bello to write for the journal: “please join me and take an active part in this endeavor by sending me your interesting writings … consider yourself my official collaborator from this moment on.”⁴ Bello did indeed oblige. Later, Irisarri recalled that “I published a monthly periodical under the title El Censor Americano, where my purpose was to point to the accomplishments as well as errors of the governments of America in their new political trajectory. The result was a thick volume that has some value for what I contributed, but mostly because of the articles by the erudite and very kind Mr. Bello.”⁵

The subjects of El Censor Americano have the imprimatur of Irisarri, but Bello's contributions are also clear, especially on subjects that were of direct interest to him, and about which he would write more in the future. Issues No. 3 (September 1820) and No. 4 (October 1820), for example, contain articles such as “Topografía de la Provincia de Cumaná,” [“Topography of the Province of Cumaná, Venezuela”] an area that Bello knew intimately from his visits as a young man to his father; additional extracts from Humboldt's Personal Narrative of Travels to the Equinoctial Regions of America; and an article on smallpox vaccination. Even the more political writings were in line with statements that Bello had made to Blanco White and Mier concerning constitutional monarchy. “To the argument that the times are not favorable to kings, because monarchies are everywhere being reformed,” asserted the journal, “we answer that the times may not be favorable to despotic kings, but they are certainly favorable to the establishment of moderate monarchies, which are the favorite system of the day.”⁶ In the climate of the early 1820s, Bello and Irisarri shared similar political ideas. Although such ideas evolved with the events of independence, it is important to note that Bello's emphasis on practical and scientific information became established during his collaboration with El Censor Americano.

Bello developed these interests much more fully in the journal Biblioteca Americana, published in London in 1823.⁷ This publication was founded by a so-called “Sociedad de Americanos,” but the main writers were Bello and the Colombian intellectual and diplomat Juan García del Río, who had arrived in London as an envoy of General José de San Martín the year before.⁸ Born in Cartagena, Colombia, García del Río had been active in the periodical press in Lima. Even before he departed for England, he had determined to publish news on developments in the region in London. On his way there in 1822, he wrote to Chilean Foreign Minister Joaquín Echeverría: “please remember what I requested from Mendoza. Alert Don Manuel de Salas about my project, and encourage him to send me articles for publication in Europe, such as interesting manuscripts, statistical information, biographies and portraits of illustrious Chileans, plans of all kinds … all of this will serve my purpose.”⁹ This was Bello's own purpose, and in London the two writers soon initiated one of the most productive Spanish American intellectual collaborations of the early independence period. They had to interrupt publication of the journal after only the second volume because of costs and other demands on their time, but they resumed their collaboration with El Repertorio Americano, publishing four volumes between 1826 and 1827.

As described in Chapter 2, these journals became the vehicles for Bello's poetic writings and some of his research on medieval literature. Beginning with the Biblioteca Americana, he also published works that were specifically designed to disseminate useful knowledge in the new republics. Foremost among the practical matters that Bello thought needed circulation in Spanish America was knowledge of the geography, products, and species of the region. The Biblioteca's statement of editorial policy indicated that “Spanish [colonial] policy kept the doors of America closed for three centuries to the countries of the world. Not content with depriving the continent of communication with the world, Spain also prevented it from knowing itself.”¹⁰ The themes of knowledge and liberation were also prominently highlighted by the journal's choice of a motto, from Petrarch's Rime:

Dunque ora è'l tempo da ritrare il collo
Dal giogo antico, e da squarciare il velo
Ch'è stato avolto intorno a gli occhi nostri
[Now is the time to free our neck and brace
Ourselves after the yoke, and tear the veil
That has been swaddled all around our eyes]

Bello's role as editor was to translate, extract, and prepare review articles on such subjects as magnetism, chemistry, mountain ranges, as well as the flora and fauna of the region. Many of these articles were translated from English and French publications, and were designed to both convey information as well as illustrate how scientific research was conducted in Europe. Other contributors to the periodical did likewise, but a division of labor existed, as was clearest in the case of García del Río, who concentrated on social and political writings.

One article that was signed jointly by García del Río and Bello was “Indicaciones sobre la Conveniencia de Simplificar y Uniformar la Ortografía en América” [“Notes on the Advisability of Simplifying and Standardizing Orthography in America”]. This was a piece probably mostly prepared by Bello, and in fact it proved to be the foundation for his subsequent grammatical works. In an emphasis reminiscent of Noah Webster's work on spelling in revolutionary America, Bello was primarily concerned with the potentialities of language for contributing to the development of nationhood.¹¹ The article argued that the simplification of current Spanish orthography was all the more urgent now that independence created the need for expanded literacy. It was Bello's belief that the acquisition of literacy would be facilitated by removing useless letters from the alphabet, and keeping only those that represented a sound. Just as Webster before him (although there is no indication that Bello was familiar with the American's work), he argued that the Latin model of spelling on which the Spanish language of the Royal Academy was based complicated rather than aided this process of literacy. Bello emphasized the importance of such reforms not only on linguistic grounds, but for moral and political reasons as well: “This is the only way to establish rational freedom, and with it the advantages of civic culture and public prosperity.”¹²

In El Repertorio Americano, Bello reinforced his dual emphasis on scientific dissemination and cultivation of the Spanish language.¹³ There was a larger number of collaborators in this new publication; the contributors included, in addition to Bello and García del Río, the poets José Fernández Madrid (Colombia), José Joaquín Olmedo (Ecuador), and the Spanish scholars Pablo Mendíbil and Vicente Salvá. It is especially significant that the editors decided to reprint, with slight variations, the Biblioteca essay on orthography, clearly in an effort to emphasize the timeliness and relevance of grammatical studies for the process of nation building. Bello added an essay on the etymology of Spanish words, and another on “The Origin and Progress of the Art of Writing,” which was designed to promote reforms of written Spanish. This last essay resorted to history to show that written language was constantly changing, implying that the progress of civilization required concurrent reforms in the language used to convey it, cultivate it, and expand it. Ultimately, such reforms were expected to bring “incalculable benefits” by “disseminating instruction and making education general among the mass of people.”¹⁴ Such statements were in keeping with the larger agenda, as stated in the prospectus of the Biblioteca Americana, of spreading the enlightenment that Spain had tried to prevent. Independence, therefore, acquired a lofty purpose in the spreading of literacy, and hence civilization.

This central focus did not detract from the journal's purpose of disseminating useful information, very much in the format of other British journals, especially the Edinburgh Review. The Biblioteca contained articles on the teaching of economics, travel narratives, the use of the barometer, cultivation of cotton and cochineal, a cure for mumps, and an assortment of other medical and scientific subjects. Bello educated himself on various scientific subjects through extensive reading and also by attendance at the meetings of the Royal Institution in London, to which he became a subscriber in April 1823, that is, at the time when Sir Humphry Davy was presenting his research on chemistry and electro-magnetism.¹⁵ Bello also developed a strong friendship with Dr. Neil Arnott, the author of The Elements of Physics (1827), with whom he also frequented the reading room of the British Museum's Library. Bello's interest in, and coverage of, scientific subjects was not isolated or arcane. Instead, he viewed scientific dissemination as a vehicle for the consolidation of republican institutions, now that countries depended on their own enlightenment to organize themselves and educate the new generations under a new political system. Science, in this respect, was part and parcel of a larger process of nation-building, and Bello availed himself of information and resources in England and beyond. The book review section of El Repertorio Americano provided various illustrations of how European countries dealt with such issues as the organization of the judiciary, parliamentary procedures, education, and elections. Bello wrote most of the book reviews in the four volumes of the Repertorio.

Many of the apparently most recondite subjects provided Bello and others with the opportunity to elaborate on recommendations for the new republics. For instance, while reviewing the activities of a Parisian society for the promotion of elementary education, Bello used the opportunity to give synopses of his emerging agenda for the establishment of new nations: he urged that the inclusion of the Spanish past be retained in the teaching of national history because the subject was “full of valuable lessons.” The new states should also avoid “the affectation of philosophical principle and declamation intended to perpetuate national hatreds,” meaning the use of French revolutionary rhetoric in elementary instruction. In addition, the new countries should promote the purity of Spanish in primary education, in contrast to “the shameful and lamentable lack of grammatical soundness of the Spanish American press, in addition to the flow of foreign expressions that threatens to turn the language of our elders into a barbaric blabber.”¹⁶ Bello's emerging view of independence included the preservation of the Spanish language, renewed cultural linkages with Europe (Spain included), and the avoidance of revolutionary ideology. Such an agenda was very much in step with the Whig reformist ideology that dominated liberal circles in London and which rejected the Jacobinism of the French Revolution. “It was not, as some think, the enthusiasm for ill-understood and exaggerated theories [i.e., French] that produced and sustained our revolution,” Bello stated, but rather “the aspiration inherent in any society to administer its own affairs, and not receive laws from another country.”¹⁷

Bello's effort to convey useful information to the new Spanish American states, and his ideologically anti-Jacobin positions, could be seen combined in his proposals for the curriculum of the University of Caracas. Probably at the request of José Rafael Revenga, the Colombian representative in London between 1822 and 1824, Bello prepared a list of key texts to be considered for adoption by the university. This is a highly significant list, for it shows Bello's view of a modern university curriculum, his knowledge of sources acquired in England, and his choices of titles in some key humanistic areas. Bello recommended a total of seventy-eight books distributed in two separate lists (“A” and “B,” probably to separate advanced from preparatory higher education). List A included the subjects of Latin, mathematics, physics, chemistry, natural history, and intellectual and moral sciences. List B included Spanish, ancient and modern history, Humanities and intellectual and moral sciences, and political economy.¹⁸

These varied subjects are significant in themselves: Bello placed great emphasis on the experimental sciences, retained Latin but expanded the sources for the study of Spanish, and introduced the subject of political economy. The authors to be studied in this latter area included Adam Smith, Jean Baptiste Say, and David Ricardo. Bello noted that he did not expect a widespread knowledge of the English language, and therefore emphasized works in French and Spanish. But he still recommended William Paley's Natural Theology and The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy; John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding; Thomas Reid's An Inquiry into the Human Mind and Essays on the Powers of the Human Mind; Dugald Stewart's Philosophy of the Human Mind, and George Campbell's The Philosophy of Rhetoric. These titles prove that Bello had acquired a significant knowledge of the work of Scottish philosophers while in London. He recommended their study in Spanish America probably because of their moderate political views and their marriage of religion and science.¹⁹ In France, Victor Cousin was also drawn to Scottish philosophy, especially the work of Reid, as he engaged in the reform of higher education. Scottish philosophers were also widely read and discussed in the United States, as scholars on both continents probed into the integrative claims of moral philosophy. Bello, for his part, would explore the themes of Scottish philosophy more fully in his Filosofía del Entendimiento, a work that concentrated on logic and the acquisition of ideas.

In the context of recommendations for the university curriculum, Bello made other, perhaps more surprising choices. He included a number of Spanish authors whom few would have expected (even today), given that this was a time when battles for independence from Spain were still being fought. In addition to such classics as Cervantes and Garcilaso de la Vega, Bello included works by Juan Meléndez Valdés (1745-1817), and Manuel José Quintana (1772-1857), who had played a role in the Spanish government just a decade earlier.

Clearly, Bello, who had never been an advocate of sharp breaks with Spain, felt that the education of independent Spanish Americans should not neglect the literature of their former rulers. An important part of this agenda was reinforced by the presence in London of numerous Spaniards fleeing the reactionary rule of Ferdinand VII after 1823. In the opinion of Vicente Llorens, the leading scholar of this exile generation, the period between 1824 and 1828 brought Spaniards and Spanish Americans together in ways that helped temper the animosities of a war that had not yet fully ended.²⁰ During the previous decade, Bello had cultivated relations with Blanco White and the Spanish literary scholar Bartolomé José Gallardo. The new wave of immigration expanded his network of contacts, including Pablo Mendíbil and Vicente Salvá, who contributed essays to El Repertorio Americano, the intellectuals José Joaquín de Mora, Agustín Arguelles, José Canga Arguelles, Antonio Alcalá Galiano and Joaquín Lorenzo Villanueva.²¹ There is no evidence that Bello may have met linguist Antonio Puigblanch, but he certainly read his works and those of other Spanish emigrés who contributed essays to journals like Variedades, and Ocios de Españoles Emigrados.²² It was not uncommon for these writers to collaborate in one or more periodicals, and comment on each other's work. They also shared the tribulations of exile and some of the joys of café socializing. Thomas Carlyle left the following impression of the Hispanic community in Somers Town, where most of them lived, in 1824:

In those years a visible section of the London population, and conspicuous out of all proportion to its size or value, was a small knot of Spaniards, who had sought shelter here as Political Refugees. ‘Political Refugees’: a tragic succession of that class is one of the possessions of England in our time. Six-and-twenty years ago, when I first saw London, I remember those unfortunate Spaniards among the new phenomena. Daily in the cold spring air, under skies so unlike their own you could see a group of fifty or a hundred stately tragic figures, in proud threadbare cloaks; perambulating, mostly with closed lips, the broad pavements of Euston Square and the region about St. Pancras new Church. Their lodging was chiefly in Somers Town as I understood; and those open pavements about St. Pancras Church were the general place of rendez vous. They spoke little or no English; knew nobody, could employ themselves on nothing, in this new scene. Old, steelgray heads, many of them; the shaggy, thick, blue-black hair of others struck you; their brown complexion, dusky look of suppressed fire, in general their tragic condition as of caged Numidian lions.²³

This vivid description by the Scottish writer is probably a good example of how Spaniards (and Spanish Americans) were viewed by some uncomprehending hosts in London. These “caged Numidian lions,” however, felt that they were in the midst of momentous changes and collaborated accordingly. The balance of the efforts of Bello and his Spanish American as well as Iberian colleagues was a positive one: As a result of their activities, various journals were published that contained essays and proposals which became central to the intellectual and political history of Latin America. Moreover, by virtue of residing in London, a number of Spanish Americans developed a keen sense of the international environment surrounding the events of independence, and acquired an experience in diplomacy that would serve them well when they returned to their home countries. But this positive balance sheet should not obscure the fact that their cultural activities took place in an often difficult personal and diplomatic context.

NEW ANXIETIES

Bello's successful publication record, unfortunately, was not an indication of success in other areas of his life. In a letter to Colombian Foreign Minister Pedro Gual dated January 6, 1825, Bello provided a rare and candid description of his personal situation in London. He explained to Gual how urgently he wanted to return to Gran Colombia, and listed the types of employment he thought he was qualified for. These included, (1) Oficial Mayor (First Secretary) positions in any of the ministries, (2) diplomatic assignments in other countries, and (3) leadership positions in educational and cultural establishments.

But, as I have said, I would accept any position that the government may find appropriate for me and which can provide me with a living. … I mastered the principal languages of Europe even before I came here. … Of the fourteen years of residence [in London] I have spent six as Legation Secretary. … I have, as you know, studied the humanities since I was a child. I can say that I have a command of mathematics. I have the knowledge necessary, although I have lacked the instruments to perform it, for the description of maps and planes. I also have a general knowledge of other scientific subjects. … You are well aware of my old habits of study and work, and those who have known me in Europe can attest to both that I conserve them, and that they have become second nature to me.

Both Bello and Gual had attended the University of Caracas in the 1790s, and knew one another well enough to allow Bello to give full expression to the urgency of his situation. Still, the appeal made Bello uncomfortable and sad, as the following passage suggests:

Therefore, I request the help of Colombia, and have confidence that the government will recognize the right of this Venezuelan employee to claim protection. It was the cause of liberty that brought me to London. The misfortunes of the fatherland condemned me to a long exile and to a life of difficulties and deprivations. Will the fatherland abandon me now that it has triumphed? … The decision is in your hands, my friend, that I might serve it again. Your recommendation to the government can do a great deal to improve my situation, which I assure you is delicate and critical. Although I have never disdained any type of work, I believe that the way in which I have spent my youth, or rather my entire life, makes me capable of something more important than the obscure role of scribe and interpreter to which I have been reduced in my current position.²⁴

This last sentence indicates that Bello had reached a point of alienation, believing that his position at the Chilean legation in London had become untenable—an episode to be examined shortly. Furthermore, Bello was in dire financial straits, was anxious about growing old without a secure employment, and feared the worst for the future of his family. After the death of Mary Ann, Bello had married Elizabeth Dunn (1804-1873) on February 24, 1824. In addition to Bello's sons Carlos and Francisco, the new couple had four children of their own in London: Juan, born in 1825; Andrés Ricardo, born in 1826; Ana Margarita, born in 1827; and Miguel, born in 1828. Eight others were born later in Chile.

Little is known about how Bello and Elizabeth met, but Bello's correspondence shows that a “young Dunn,” most likely a sibling of Elizabeth, delivered his mail when he lived at Clarendon Square.²⁵ One of their descendants, Inés Echeverría Bello, implied that Elizabeth was Irish, although this is not apparent from the name.²⁶ The neighborhood of Somers Town, however, had a strong Irish component, and thus the likelihood is high.²⁷ The records of the British Museum Library, where Bello regularly renewed his admissions to the Reading Room, show that Bello lived at 39 Clarendon Square until at least November 4, 1822. By early 1823, he had moved to 6 Solls Row, at Hampstead Road, which was not far from Somers Town, most likely in anticipation of his marriage.²⁸ After the couple married and their second child was born, they moved in early 1826 to a house at 9 Egremont Place, on New Road (today's Euston Road at St. Pancras Station).²⁹ This is the house where the family lived until they departed for Chile. These frequent address changes, and his rapidly growing family, explain to a great extent Bello's financial anxiety.

Still, the Bellos were eager to stay in close contact with a wide circle of friends. Of these, perhaps the closest was the Ecuadorean poet José Joaquín Olmedo, who had arrived in England in 1825 as the representative of Peru. Diplomatic duties took him to France in November 1826, but he returned to London in July 1827 and stayed through March 1828. During that time, he cultivated an intense friendship with Bello. He became godfather to the young Andrés Ricardo, and sent affectionate letters to the Bello family from Paris. Bello reciprocated heartily, and wrote a celebration of their friendship in the form of a poem titled “Carta Escrita de Londres a París por un Americano a Otro” [“A Letter from London to Paris from one American to Another”],

Es fuerza que te diga, caro Olmedo,
que del dulce solaz destituido
de tu tierna amistad, vivir no puedo.
¡Mal haya ese París tan divertido,
y todas sus famosas fruslerías,
que a soledad me tienen reducido!

(I, 93)

[I must tell you, dear Olmedo,
that I cannot live without the sweet comfort
of your tender friendship.
Damned be that entertaining Paris,
and all its famous frivolities
that condemn me to this loneliness!]

Bello then urges Olmedo to return to London, for there

Me aguarda una alma fiel, veraz, constante,
que al verme sentirá más alegría
de la que me descubra en el semblante.

(I, 94)

[A faithful, true and constant friend awaits you
who will experience more joy
than will show in his face when he sees you].

Even in times of difficulty, Bello was capable of offering a warm and thoughtful friendship. Such qualities of character were appreciated by Olmedo, who also had a gift for expressing his own feelings uninhibitedly. As he left for South America on March 7, 1828, he wrote to Bello, perhaps knowing that he would never see him again: “The moment has come. By the time you receive this letter I will be far away from London; yet those who love are never far. I am taking you, dear Andrés, deep inside my soul, and in my heart” (XXV, 384-385).

Bello appears to have been able to confront his darkest moments with the assurance of friendships like this and that of Blanco White. He seemed to open his heart with ease to those who shared his sensitivity, but he could be distant and reserved when he found himself depending on others. He also felt quite helpless and insecure about his overall situation. The fact that he did not receive a response to his direct appeal to Pedro Gual for a position in Gran Colombia reinforced his sense of having been abandoned by his homeland. He had no choice but to stay in London. His years in the diplomatic crops would be punctuated by these disappointed expectations, and were compounded by the fragility, and at times chaos, of the diplomatic missions of the early republican period.

BELLO'S ROLE IN SPANISH AMERICAN DIPLOMACY

Early Spanish American diplomatic efforts had been limited to securing the protection of Great Britain in the case of a possible French invasion. After Bolívar's convening of the Congress at Angostura (1819), and the military victories of his troops at Boyacá and Carabobo in northern South America, Spanish Americans on both sides of the Atlantic switched to a more ambitious agenda of independent nationhood. At Angostura, deputies were commissioned to renew efforts to secure European recognition, this time not in the form of protection from foreign enemies, but rather in the name of the sovereignty and self-determination of the new nations. Recognition by Great Britain was certainly the main objective, but Article 31 of the instructions to representatives Fernando Peñalver and José María Vergara also included recognition by the Vatican.³⁰ In light of the magnitude of Catholic Church opposition to the independence movement during the First Republic, the Angostura Congress sought to neutralize Spain's ability to use the Church against the new nations by establishing a direct concordat with the Vatican. In theory, this would give the new governments the ability to appoint ecclesiastical personnel friendly to independence, and defuse a potential source of opposition to the new political order.

Once in London in 1820, envoys Peñalver and Vergara found themselves unable to change the British position of strict neutrality, and thus they concentrated on communications with the Vatican. They commissioned Andrés Bello to prepare a letter to Pope Pius VII to request formal relations with the Vatican. Bello completed the letter in Latin on March 27, 1820.³¹

Much of the missive dwelled on the sorry state of peoples deprived of religious comfort. But it also asserted the fundamental right of self-determination, especially from regions subjected to both foreign threats and the inability of Spain to come to terms with its own internal political disagreements. The letter asserted that there being no chance of a return to the status quo ante, the issue now became how to ensure that the new states could provide for the spiritual needs of the population: “Inde factum est ut, quamquam tantae rei Status impensa cura consuluerint, maxima sacerdotum inopia laboremus” [This is why it has come about that although the states try to provide for so important a matter with lavish care, we are suffering from a shortage of priests]. Without priests, the letter added, one could legitimately predict “the total ruin of religion” (VIII, 461). And yet, the argument proceeded, these new states were unequivocally Catholic. Hence efforts ought to be made to reconcile the need to minister to the faithful with the reality of the new republican political arrangements. If Spain still held the monopoly of ecclesiastical appointments, the people of Gran Colombia would be left with the dismal choice of being without clerics entirely, or being unable to be comforted by appointees of the enemies of their government. Priests selected by Spanish authorities would aggravate ills rather than solve them. In short, the letter called for the transfer of royal patronage (long enjoyed by the Spanish crown in colonial days) to the newly installed republics, the emphasis being on the existence of such new republics. Clearly, the letter conveyed not only the dilemmas of the current political situation, but also showed how important Vatican approval was to the new states.

The impact of the letter was not immediate, but the Vatican agreed to name bishops for Gran Colombia in 1827, the first such act of recognition for Spanish America.³² Bello's letter shows that as early as 1820 he was in a position to elaborate on arguments in favor of independence that were based on national sovereignty, even if much of the argumentation was couched in religious and humanitarian terms. It is important to note, however, that Bello articulated these views without the sanction of an official appointment. It was only when Antonio José de Irisarri asked him to join the Chilean Legation as secretary, that Bello formally represented a Spanish American government after his earlier mission in 1810. This appointment materialized in June 1822. As noted earlier, Bello had asked for a position the year before, when his economic penury seemed to have reached yet another new low.

Antonio José de Irisarri (1786-1868) was born in Guatemala. Business and family connections took him to Chile in 1809, where he married into the prominent Larraín family. He soon immersed himself in the politics of independence, rising, for a brief period in 1814, to the highest position in government, that of Supreme Director. After the royalist military routed patriot forces at Rancagua later in the year, Irisarri fled to Mendoza across the Andes mountains, and then moved to London, where he arrived in 1815 and stayed through 1817. Irisarri was a close ally of independence hero and statesman Bernardo O'Higgins, who asked him to lead his cabinet in 1818 and later that year dispatched him to England as Chilean envoy.³³ It was during this second London visit that Irisarri met Bello, possibly in 1819, but most certainly by 1820, when both collaborated in the publication of El Censor Americano. Irisarri was a self-assured, contentious and flamboyant man who could be reckless in the management of diplomatic and financial affairs. But he was also a notable writer, as he had proven in his articles in the Chilean papers El Semanario Republicano and El Duende de Santiago during the first decade of independence. He was a learned man who had an appreciation for scholarship and who, despite his usually dismissive character, was completely captivated by Bello. He determined, early on, to attract the Venezuelan to the service of Chile. It is thanks to Irisarri, as with Blanco White before him, that descriptions of Bello's personal character exist during this period.

In a letter to Chilean Foreign Minister Joaquín Echeverría dated October 10, 1820, Irisarri described Bello as “a very capable man who commands a vast literature and an extensive knowledge of the sciences. He also possesses a seriousness and nobility of character that make him all the more estimable. These qualities, my friend, so difficult to find these days, make me strongly attracted to him.”³⁴ To his wife Mercedes he described how he passed the time in London at the British Museum Library “completely devoted to reading and to studying certain literary matters with an excellent friend, Mr. Andrés Bello. He is a true sage on account of his knowledge and character, and also because of the humility with which he endures a lack of means that is similar if not greater than mine.”³⁵ To Supreme Director Bernardo O'Higgins, Irisarri wrote that

There is a man here of Venezuelan origin whom I consider a friend and in whom I am particularly interested: I met him not long ago, but we see each other frequently because of his experience in diplomatic affairs, a field among many others in which he possesses a vast knowledge. I am persuaded that of all the [Spanish] Americans who have been commissioned to this Court [England], he is the most serious and attentive to his duties, to which qualities he adds a beauty of character and an impressive knowledge.³⁶

Irisarri was in a position to judge Bello's abilities because he had asked him to produce a report on the Lancasterian system of education, which Bello duly prepared and submitted on September 11, 1820.³⁷ Irisarri thus expressed his hope, in the same letter to O'Higgins, that he might employ Bello in some capacity, urging immediate action because “he will probably not be able to stay at this Court much longer due to the extreme conditions in which he and his family find themselves, and that might force them to leave to who knows where.” After this letter, Irisarri wrote to Bello on March 21, 1821 to inform him that he was waiting for a response from Chile. There, he took the opportunity to criticize Simón Bolívar: “You can call yourself a friend of General Bolívar, and declare yourself his supporter, but I, who am neither one nor the other, and having no other knowledge of him than his public deeds, cannot consider him such a great man if he is unable to make good use of people like you.”³⁸ This statement suggests that Irisarri, and perhaps others, had asked Bello why Bolívar had not come to his aid. He could only beg the question.

THE CHILEAN LEGATION

Irisarri was determined to hire Bello, and the opportunity presented itself when the current secretary, Francisco Ribas, left the service of the Chilean legation in late 1821. Irisarri contacted Bello from Paris to offer him the job in an acting capacity, until he could obtain confirmation from Chile. The formal offer indicated that Bello was to be hired as Acting Secretary, and that he would retain the Venezuelan rank of Commissioner of War. The offer consisted of an annual salary of ＄2,000 Chilean pesos (approximately £400), a sum that however modest for Bello's needs was much more than he had ever enjoyed in London on a steady basis. Irisarri accompanied the offer with an explanatory letter, which, however matter-of-fact, could not hide his enthusiasm.³⁹

Such enthusiasm was justified, for Irisarri had only a few days earlier (May 18, 1822) made arrangements with the house of Hullett Brothers for a loan of £1 million to the government of Chile.⁴⁰ Irisarri needed a competent official to administer the legation while he shuttled between London and Paris to invest, or as some more skeptical observers in Chile and England preferred to term, squander the funds. Irisarri paid himself the handsome commission of £20,000 for contracting the loan, and took another £18,000 which he claimed as back pay. This is the infamous loan that landed Irisarri in a British court of law in 1825 and forever destroyed his credibility, although he was acquitted. It was, moreover, the loan whose negative consequences for Chile made the government send an official, Mariano Egaña, to London on a mission to investigate Irisarri's handling of the proceeds.

By virtue of his position at the Chilean Legation, Bello had signed the contract for the loan, but all evidence suggests that his responsibilities were administrative and political rather than financial. Irisarri wanted, for obvious reasons, to keep close control over the proceeds of the loan. With Irisarri absent in Paris for most of the time, the responsibility fell on Bello to keep the Chilean Foreign Ministry informed and perform the day-to-day tasks of the legation. In two key dispatches dated May 8, 1823, and June 24, 1824, Bello offered the European perspective on the state of Spanish American affairs.⁴¹

In the first dispatch, he described in stark terms how the restoration of Ferdinand VII with the Holy Alliance and French support made the recognition of independence by continental powers virtually impossible. In fact, one could even expect renewed efforts to recover the former colonies for Spain. The better prospect lay in British recognition, especially in the stated intent of George Canning to prevent French intervention in Spanish American affairs. But much more was needed to prevent the aggression of the continental powers. In order to secure British recognition, Bello suggested, Spanish American countries needed to represent how much British trade stood to suffer should Spain reconquer the region. But more importantly, they needed to be prepared to offer substantial concessions. In the case of Chile, Bello urged guidance on how to respond to predictable questions from Canning, should a meeting to discuss the matter of recognition materialize. In particular, was Chile prepared to consider financial or other concessions to Spain in exchange for British recognition?

Such questions were in line with British pronouncements in the past, for its policy of neutrality urged the contending parties to find an accommodation. The underlying message of Bello's communication was that Spanish America needed to secure British recognition at all costs, for the lack of it rendered the region especially vulnerable to the Holy Alliance designs. Another important dimension of the dispatch was the acknowledgment that Great Britain refrained from extending recognition for lack of certainty about the political stability of government institutions. He strained to be diplomatic in conveying this point: “We are told that we are not believed to be in a position to be recognized.” Although this statement was vague, the implication was that Chile should produce a clear indication of what its form of government was, knowing that Canning would continue to affect uncertainty until Chile and other nations embraced constitutional monarchy. This was, of course, Irisarri's and Bello's view as much as Canning's.⁴²

Meanwhile, Chile was preoccupied precisely with the same questions concerning political stability, although not exactly because British recognition was at stake. O'Higgins had been forced to resign by a rebellion headed by General Ramón Freire in January 1823, but the resulting change of government did not stop continued factionalism. Political organization was not helped by the Constitution of 1823, a complex document authored by the erudite intellectual Juan Egaña that called Chile a republic, but which provided for confusing and often contradictory functions to the various branches of government.⁴³ A frustrated Congress suspended the Constitution after Supreme Director Freire resigned in July 1824 claiming that he could not govern under the terms of the constitutional document. Later in the year, the Congress abrogated the Constitution without even producing a replacement. That state of affairs, duly reported to the British government, did not help the Chilean case for recognition. On the basis of information provided by the British Consul in Chile, Christopher Nugent, Canning concluded that “Chile is not yet ripe for recognition.”⁴⁴

Communications between the British government and its consuls in various countries were faster and better than those of the Spanish American governments with their own representatives. Unaware of political developments in Chile, Bello produced a second dispatch dated June 24, 1824. There, Bello expanded once again on the dangers presented by the activities of the Holy Alliance, and the bitter hostility of Ferdinand VII's government toward Spanish America. In measured paragraphs, Bello returned to the issue of political organization. He reported that Canning was on the verge of announcing a very limited recognition of a Spanish American state, most likely Gran Colombia. This recognition, however, would involve no promise of alliance in a war against Spain. Bello reported that Canning left the door open for the recognition of other countries, but that this would depend “on the progress that the new states make in the consolidation of their institutions.” He also added that the Foreign Secretary had recently represented to Juan García del Río, in his capacity as Peru's envoy, that “the strength of the new states was the pivotal point on which recognition rested,” and that “the cabinets of Europe would look more favorably, and predict better results, if the new states adopted constitutional monarchies following European principles.” However persuasive the arguments might have been, Chilean leaders had a completely different set of priorities.

By this time, the Chilean state was more concerned about the fate of the proceeds of the 1822 loan, and duly sent Foreign Relations Minister Mariano Egaña (Juan Egaña's son) to London to investigate the actions of Irisarri.⁴⁵ Bello's role was not a part of the investigation, but his position was precarious given that he had assisted Irisarri (or most likely, had been used by him) during the financial negotiations. In the event, Bello was soon caught in the acrimonious dispute between the two officials, and as a result he eventually abandoned the service of Chile. A brief review of this affair illustrates both the disastrous consequences of the Chilean loan, as well as the course Bello's life took as a result of Egaña's mission.

Mariano Egaña lacked the finesse, and perhaps even the stomach, to rein in Irisarri and advance Chilean interests in London. The British Consul in Chile bluntly called him “much more a hawker of diplomacy than a substantial character.”⁴⁶ Knowing not a word of English, Egaña was helpless even to clear through customs when he arrived at Gravesend on August 26, 1824. The cunning Irisarri took full advantage of Egaña's helplessness and managed to trick the envoy into delivering his luggage to one of Irisarri's agents. With advance knowledge of Egaña's plans and instructions, Irisarri determined to obstruct the envoy's mission and in a few days left for Paris carrying the legation's seal and papers, leaving Bello in charge of the office.

In three letters to his father Juan, dated September 1, 22, and 24, 1824, an exasperated Mariano Egaña described in full detail his troubles upon arrival in England, and Irisarri's refusal to cooperate with his mission. He indulged in a free flow of invective against Irisarri, which was probably justified, but he soon became suspicious of anyone who was close to his declared enemy. Bello had the distinct misfortune of meeting Egaña precisely at the moment when the Chilean envoy had lost his bearings upon realizing that his belongings had been taken. In Egaña's own description, when Bello introduced himself and mentioned that Irisarri was in London at the moment, he was seized by the sudden realization that Irisarri had taken his luggage: “I was besides myself and as if possessed I ran into streets I did not know in search of my belongings.”⁴⁷ From then on, a confused Bello had to endure the suspicion of Egaña, who believed him to be an accomplice in Irisarri's dubious dealings. As Egaña put it, “[Antonio] Gutiérrez [Moreno] and Bello are not to be trusted due to their friendship with Irisarri, and especially the latter, because he seems to me to be too cautious and reserved. He makes me quite uncomfortable.”⁴⁸ Still, Egaña needed Bello, and resentfully kept him in his employ once he learned that Bello's salary had been paid in advance. It was only slowly that Egaña came to appreciate him, consider him his friend, and even engineer his transfer to Chile later in the decade.

Meanwhile, Bello felt enormous pressure under the nervous gaze of the paranoid Egaña. On January 6, 1825, he issued an anxious call for help from the government of Gran Colombia, stating that “the removal of Mr. Irisarri has made my staying on the job scarcely compatible with the preservation of my integrity as an employee. The government of Chile has not confirmed my continuation, and I have no credit with its present representative, who considers me a protégé and a friend of his predecessor.”⁴⁹ To Irisarri he wrote on February 3, 1825, that “Mr. Egaña has concluded that the relations between you and me are so detrimental to his commission that he has permitted himself such indiscretions that I can no longer tolerate.” Bello added that his explanations and rebuttals to Egaña were of no use and had led to an almost complete breakdown of communication. He proceeded to ask Irisarri for a job, so that “you can free me from the nightmare of Mr. Egaña.”⁵⁰ Irisarri was in London at the time but the was in no position to help, as his financial affairs were headed toward bankruptcy. He took the opportunity, however, to indulge in a barrage of epithets against Egaña.

Just when he seemed to be at the very end of his tether, Bello learned that as a result of his previous requests to the government of Gran Colombia, Vice-President Francisco de Paula Santander had appointed him First Secretary of the Colombian Legation (November 8, 1824). Santander was in charge of the government of Gran Colombia while Simón Bolívar was occupied with the liberation of Peru, which culminated in the battle of Ayacucho on December 9, 1824. While these events were unfolding, the document of appointment finally reached London on February 5, 1825, and was acknowledged by the Colombian Minister Plenipotentiary in London, Manuel José Hurtado. He must have notified Bello soon afterwards, and Bello himself accepted immediately, for he received the appointment and swore the customary oath of allegiance to the country at Hurtado's residence at 33 Portland Place on February 7, 1825.⁵¹ Bello's instructions were spelled out by Foreign Minister Pedro Gual in two letters dated November 9, 1824. One asked Bello to “work diligently on dispelling the errors that prevail in Europe, especially in the continent, concerning the current state of the Spanish American republics.”⁵² The other detailed his administrative functions as “organizing and maintaining the archives, conducting correspondence, coding and decoding communications, etc., and handling with exactitude and confidentiality all matters regarding your office.”⁵³ This must have been an exhilarating moment for Bello, as shown by the effusiveness of his response to Pedro Gual on February 10, 1825. After asking Gual to convey his thanks to Santander, Bello pledged that “I will never lose sight of my obligations to a fatherland from whose service I was separated by imperious and until now irresistible circumstances, but which I have always considered mine.”⁵⁴

Meanwhile, the chagrined Egaña wrote to his father that “in early February Bello notified me that he had received an appointment at the Colombian Legation and that he was no longer a secretary to that of Chile. Without further ado, he left me. Quid faciendum, and who to turn to?”⁵⁵ He vented his anger against Bello, always in the context of discussing Irisarri, as for example when he served as witness in Irisarri's libel suit against The Morning Chronicle on December 19, 1825.⁵⁶ He continued to find opportunities to criticize Bello for yet another year, until he found another target in Vicente Rocafuerte, the Ecuadorean-born representative of Mexico in London who had dared criticize a publication by his father Juan.⁵⁷ Egaña eventually mellowed, as the prospects of returning to Chile became imminent by the close of the decade. Not even the comforts of Paris, where he spent most of his time in the late 1820s, reconciled him to a job that by all accounts made him miserable.

GRAN COLOMBIA

Freed from Egaña's temperament, Andrés Bello was able to enjoy a brief period of calm and even success when he joined the Colombian legation in 1825. At that time, Gran Colombia was in the midst of establishing a Treaty of Friendship, Navigation, and Commerce with Great Britain. The Treaty had been under discussion since 1824, and by early 1825 George Canning had dispatched envoys to Gran Colombia to discuss terms. The envoys returned to London with a document signed by Colombian authorities on April 18, 1825. After a meeting between George Canning and Manuel José Hurtado on July 2, 1825, the former announced the readiness of Great Britain to recognize Gran Colombia on July 5, 1825. After considerable administrative work, in which Bello was centrally involved, the Treaty was ratified on November 7, 1825. A few days later, on November 11, King George IV formally received Hurtado, who was accompanied by Canning, as the first fully accredited representative of a Spanish American nation. Andrés Bello himself was formally introduced to George Canning on November 12, 1825.⁵⁸ The long-desired diplomatic recognition of Spanish American independence, although limited for the time being to Gran Colombia, Mexico, and Buenos Aires, appeared to usher in a most promising entrance into the community of sovereign nations.

Such optimism proved to be painfully short-lived. The seeds of financial trouble had already been planted by the Colombian government's debt to British merchants who had provided capital to support Bolívar's war effort. Colombian envoy Francisco Antonio Zea had compounded the problem with refinancing schemes and further commitment of government income to service the debt in 1820. Then, on March 13, 1822, he contracted a loan of £2 million with the house of Herring, Graham and Powles, much of which went to meet the obligations of 1820, dividend payments, and commissions.⁵⁹ Zea acted on the basis of extensive powers granted to him for his representation in London, but slow communications and the dynamics of recently introduced parliamentary procedure in Colombia disavowed his authority and his actions. As a result, Zea was caught between investors who believed him to be in a position to negotiate on behalf of his country, and a home government that exercised its power to ratify international arrangements, which in this case chose not to. British investors' confidence plummeted when it became clear that Zea's signature was not good enough, and in any case he died unexpectedly in November 1822. Just as the British government was contemplating recognition of Gran Colombia, financial circles had begun to panic about the country's solvency. Were Zea's commitments binding for the government of Gran Colombia? Would the country honor commitments made on its behalf? Gran Colombia under Santander had no choice but to take responsibility, even if this involved the acquisition of new loans in 1824.⁶⁰

The sad conclusion of Zea's activities, and Santander's acquisition of new obligations spelled the complete collapse of Gran Colombia's financial creditworthiness. Meanwhile, the London market's crash of 1826 dampened the emerging enthusiasm over the economic potential of the newly liberated regions of Spanish America. Hence, Bello found himself in the contradictory situation of serving a government that had achieved a major diplomatic victory with the 1825 Treaty while at the same time losing financial credibility. As a result, the legation of Gran Colombia was besieged by the claims of disappointed and angry investors, while at the same time it tried to act the part of a sovereign nation recently recognized by the most powerful country on earth.

Although freed from the antics of Egaña, Bello found the legation of Gran Colombia to be no panacea. In addition to the regular duties of the legation, Bello was often immersed in financial affairs, attempting to exercise some damage control over the ill-fated loans. He made strenuous efforts to prevent the government of Gran Colombia from acquiring additional loans to meet its debt obligations. In a frank letter, co-signed by Consul Santos Michelena, Bello stated that “such is the credit of the Republic that, even with enormous efforts, we will not find an investor willing to advance funds.” He added that the reputation of Gran Colombia was not only damaged, but that “such is the irritation that exists here, that we frankly do not know how to even begin new financial negotiations.”⁶¹ In a private letter to Minister José Rafael Revenga, he had already stated with obvious anxiety that “I want to be a thousand leagues away from London the day that [our country] misses a payment of the debt. I would be ashamed to look at anyone in the eye who knows me to be from Colombia.” He added the following statement in English:

The outcry would be dreadful, and depend upon it, the effects of the shock received at this center of the commercial world would be felt everywhere, and not the least in Colombia. I hope, my dear friend, for our country's sake, that this terrible calamity has been viewed in all its frightful bearings, and that our statesmen have exerted, & will continue to exert themselves to avert it, for there is hardly a sacrifice worth regretting, when the object is to prevent this injury and moral stain of a national bankruptcy.⁶²

There was not much that Bello or anyone could do to prevent the deterioration of Gran Colombia's credit; the country was not alone in this situation, as nation after nation in Spanish America defaulted during the course of 1826. In another letter to Revenga, a dispirited Bello exclaimed: “What a sudden and painful fall from the position in which we were just a few months ago! And yet the tempest [i.e., the consequences of financial disaster] has only begun. … Dear God! So many sacrifices, bloodshed, and glory, will they all end in dishonor and ruin? I say ruin, because without credit and honor there can be no health for any state, and especially not for an emerging republic.”⁶³

To make matters worse, Bello also found that his relationship with Manuel José Hurtado was severely strained, as he suspected, because of the Colombian government's decision in July 1826 to transfer fiscal responsibilities to Bello and Santos Michelena.⁶⁴ Bello found himself excluded from a number of diplomatic functions, and treated coldly by his superior. Tensions built up in December of that year, to the point that Bello wrote letters to Santander, to the Finance Minister, and to Bolívar, to ask them to transfer him as soon as possible to another destination. The letter to Bolívar dated December 21 is particularly noteworthy. There he painted in stark terms his inability to support himself and his family, and asked Bolívar for help in ways that reveal the extent of the tensions with Hurtado:

Let me ask your excellency to exercise your powerful influence in favor of a sincere and faithful servant of the cause of America, so that I can have a better position than I currently do. I am the dean of the legation secretaries in London, and though not the most inefficient, I am the one treated with the least consideration by his own superior.⁶⁵

In early January 1827, Bello informed the Ministry of Foreign Relations that Hurtado had refused to pay the salaries of the staff, and that he had met with him to represent both the personal and political consequences of such an act. Hurtado, according to Bello, refused to reconsider his decision stating that he no longer had responsibility over fiscal affairs.⁶⁶ Bello, as a result, was forced to acquire a loan under his own name to pay for his and the staff's salaries. He then confronted Hurtado on January 10, 1827, asking him whether he had done anything to merit Hurtado's slights, and demanding, if such was the case, that he articulated any grievances in writing so that he could respond formally to the government.⁶⁷ The letter, however, was not answered. Bello was unaware, but the government of Gran Colombia had already relieved Hurtado from his position by decree of October 19, 1826, which also named Bello as Chargé d'Affaires. Such an action vindicated Bello, but he did not know about it until late January or early February, 1827. In the event, he assumed the position on February 7, and held it until May 4, 1827, when envoy José Fernández Madrid, who was then in Paris, formally assumed Hurtado's post.

This was not, however, the end of Bello's troubles, tied as they were to the destinies, financial and political, of Gran Colombia. Although his difficult situation was compounded by Hurtado, even without him Bello's salary was insufficient to cover the needs of his growing family. Moreover, his requests for a promotion went without a reply. Simón Bolívar had written a letter to Fernández Madrid on February 21, 1827, conveying regards for Bello “with the friendship and affection that I have always had for him,” but without mentioning anything about Bello's request and predicament.⁶⁸ Furthermore, in the same letter Bolívar commissioned Bello, along with Fernández Madrid and Santos Michelena, to oversee the sale of his copper mines in Aroa, Venezuela, a commission that led to the frustration of all parties concerned.⁶⁹ But probably the biggest blow to Bello came when he learned that upon the appointment of Fernández Madrid, he would return to the same position of secretary, which he expected, but with the same previous level of salary, which he did not. In a letter to Bolívar, Bello pointed to the injustice of the measure, for the secretary's salary was pegged to the Minister Plenipotentiary's in a relation of one to three, and he was falling short of that figure (＄3,333 instead of ＄4,000 Colombian pesos). He asked Bolívar to correct the error, but added “I am grieved by this measure, not so much because of the financial loss that it represents (which in my circumstances is very serious), but because of the slight [desaire] that it implies.” The usually reserved Bello added that “I am on the verge of old age, and I see no other prospect for my children than a legacy of indigence.”⁷⁰

Bello was comforted by the arrival of Fernández Madrid in London on April 30, 1827. They shared literary interests and they had liked each other even before they met through the good offices of their common friend, the poet José Joaquín Olmedo. Their collaboration for the next two years was harmonious, and their exchanges show strong ties of friendship. But Bello's financial situation was indeed desperate, and he was convinced that Bolívar held some grudge against him. From his position as Minister of Foreign Relations, José Rafael Revenga did his best to convince Bello that Bolívar was sympathetic and that help would be forthcoming. Bello, however, could not live with the uncertainty.⁷¹ He renewed his appeals to José Manuel Restrepo, another government official and friend, and insisted that he could no longer afford to live in London. He asked Restrepo to intervene on his behalf so that he could be transferred to another location, perhaps in France or Holland, where he could live somewhat better on his meager salary.

Bolívar himself confronted grave problems. He had rushed back to Gran Colombia from Peru in late 1826 to confront the challenge of Venezuela against the central government in Bogotá. Bolívar was convinced that the key to the problem was Santander's doctrinaire legalism and insensitivity to regionalist sentiment in Caracas. Bolívar broke relations with Santander on March 16, 1827. In a letter to Fernández Madrid dated May 26, 1827, he acknowledged the seriousness of his problems. He also admitted that Peru was “lost” and that southern Colombia (soon to become Ecuador) was “compromised” by the treason of a military group inspired, he suspected, by Santander. He also reviewed the long list of conflicts brewing in the territory, and admitted to being overwhelmed. He sent regards to Bello but indicated that he had no time to address his concerns. He asked, incidentally, if there had been any movement on the sale of his mines.⁷² When he finally responded to Bello on June 16, 1827, it was to indicate that he no longer had any influence over Santander, who was in charge of the government and hence, foreign affairs. In a sentence that must have struck the already wounded Bello, Bolívar sharply added “I regret that you have not yet concluded the business of the mines.”⁷³ Clearly, Bolívar did not fully understand the extent of Bello's alienation. The Liberator had other things on his mind, in addition to the mines, and within a year he assumed dictatorial powers in an attempt to salvage the rapidly disintegrating unity of Gran Colombia.⁷⁴

THE DECISION TO MOVE TO CHILE

Soon after the disappointing news from Bolívar, in late 1827, Bello contacted Mariano Egaña. The Chilean envoy had by now become a devoted friend, and Bello felt free to tell him of his willingness to leave the service of Colombia. Egaña, in turn, contacted the Chilean government on November 10, and recommended that Bello be appointed to a position in Santiago.⁷⁵ Meanwhile, Bello's friends in Bogotá did what they could to find Bello a better post, but all they secured for him was an appointment as Minister Plenipotentiary to Portugal, which in diplomatic terms was more of a demotion than a career advancement. He could, while waiting for the appointment to be approved, serve as Consul General of Gran Colombia in France, but from London and without any mention of salary and expenses. On September 15, 1828, Bello, who had spent most of the year without a salary, finally heard that the government of Chile had authorized his appointment at the rank of Oficial Mayor in one of the ministries in Santiago. The Chilean government offered to pay his travel costs and, in case he decided not to stay in Chile, to fund his relocation to another Spanish American country.⁷⁶ He did not wait long to make a decision and on September 19, he responded to the Chilean legation's secretary, José Miguel de la Barra: “I of course accept your offer and I am ready to leave as soon as I can put my affairs in order.”⁷⁷ Thus, it is clear that Bello's motivation to take this step was guided by a combination of factors: his desperate financial situation; his skepticism that Gran Colombia would secure him a better position and fund it; his sense that the country had not only lost financial credibility, but was also falling apart politically; and the fear that Bolívar had some serious grievance against him. On December 2, 1828, he politely, but not without a bitter edge, turned down the honor of a consulship in Paris, and requested that his overdue salary be paid to both his family in Caracas and to his creditors in London. He announced that he would move to Chile, from which country he would be glad to be of help to Gran Colombia.⁷⁸

It was only to Fernández Madrid that he revealed the agitated state of his mind upon leaving London for Chile. “I am writing to you at 4:30 a.m., when I have finally readied all that I need to leave. I impatiently await dawn so that I can depart this city, which is in so many ways hateful to me, and in so many other ways the object of my love, especially now that you, the foremost of Colombia's sons, and the best of all men, inhabits it … ¡Adiós!, ¡Adiós!”⁷⁹

Fernández Madrid, who was aware of Bello's plans, was torn between his friendship with Bello and his desire to retain him in the service of Gran Colombia. He thought that something could still be done and wrote to Bolívar on November 6, 1828,

In my view the loss of Mr. Bello would be a blow to Colombia: we have very few men who combine his integrity, talent, and knowledge. I am very sorry to see him go away, because if anything serious emerges, I will miss his counsel and his knowledge. I need not say that my means and my house have always been at his complete disposal; but you know about [Bello's] extremely reserved character. He has never made use of my sincere and insistent offers.⁸⁰

Bolívar reacted to the news with obvious urgency:

Three thousand pesos have recently been sent to Bello so that he can [take his assignment] in France. I implore you to not let our enlightened friend go to the land of anarchy [Chile]. Persuade him that Colombia is the least bad among the countries of America, and that if he wants to be employed in this country, he should just say so and he will be appointed to an appropriate position. He should prefer his fatherland above all else, and he is worthy of a very important position in it. I know the superior talents of this Caracas native who is my contemporary: he was my teacher when we were of the same [young] age; and I loved him with respect. His diffidence has kept us apart to a certain extent, and because of that, I want to be reconciled with him, that is to attract him to Colombia.⁸¹

It was too little, too late. By the time Bolívar sent his letter, Bello and his family were crossing the Atlantic. They had departed in the merchant brigantine Grecian from Gravesend on February 14, 1829. Bello eventually received and kept a copy of Bolívar's letter, but never acted upon it. By the end of 1830, Bolívar was dead, and Bello had just entered, not the twilight that he had expected, but the most productive period of his life.

Notes

1. For accounts of U.S. policy and attitudes toward Latin America, see Arthur P. Whitaker, The United States and the Independence of Latin America, 1800-1830 (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1964), and Lars Schoultz, Beneath the United States: A History of U.S. Policy Toward Latin America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998).

2. Harold Temperley, The Foreign Policy of Canning, 1822-1827: England, the Neo-Holy Alliance, and the New World (London: Frank Cass & Co., 1966). See also C. K. Webster, ed., Britain and the Independence of Latin America, 1812-1830. Select Documents from the Foreign Office Archives (London: Oxford University Press, 1938), and D. A. G. Waddell, “International Politics and Latin American Independence,” in Leslie Bethell, ed., The Cambridge History of Latin America, 11 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), III, pp. 197-228.

3. On the Spanish-language press in London, see María Teresa Berruezo León, La Lucha de Hispanoamérica por su Independencia en Inglaterra, 1800-1830 (Madrid: Ediciones de Cultura Hispánica, 1989); Vicente Llorens, Liberales y Románticos: Una Emigración Española en Inglaterra, 1823-1834, 2nd ed. (Madrid: Editorial Castalia, 1968), and Karen Racine, “Imagining Independence: London's Spanish American Community, 1790-1829” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Tulane University, 1996). See also John Ford, “Rudolph Ackermann: Publisher to Latin America,” in Bello y Londres, 2 vols. (Caracas: La Casa de Bello, 1981), I, pp. 197-224, and his “Rudolph Ackermann: Culture and Commerce in Latin America, 1822-1828,” in John Lynch, ed., Andrés Bello: The London Years (Richmond, Surrey: The Richmond Publishing Co., 1982), pp. 137-152.

4. Irisarri to Bello, June 16, 1820, in Andrés Bello, Obras Completas [henceforth OC] 26 vols. (Caracas: La Casa de Bello, 1981-1984), XXV, 97-98.

5. Quoted by Ricardo Donoso, Antonio José de Irisarri, Escritor y Diplomático (Santiago: Prensas de la Universidad de Chile, 1934, 2nd ed., 1966), p. 34. See also Berruezo, La Lucha, pp. 270-279. Guillermo Feliú Cruz dismissed the notion that Bello participated in the journal, but on the basis of an examination of two issues (of four), and on stylistic grounds. See his “Bello, Irisarri y Egaña en Londres,” in Andrés Bello y la Redacción de los Documentos Oficiales Administrativos Internacionales y Legislativos de Chile (Caracas: Fundación Rojas Astudillo, 1957), p. 14.

6. El Censor Americano, No. 4 (October 1820), p. 288. This extremely rare journal can be consulted at the Archivo Central Andrés Bello, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile [henceforth ACAB].

7. For an account of Bello's role in the Biblioteca, as well as an identification of authors, see Pedro Grases, “La Biblioteca Americana (Londres, 1823),” in Estudios sobre Andrés Bello [Henceforth ESAB], 2 vols. (Caracas, Barcelona, Mexico: Editorial Seix Barral, 1981), II, pp. 318-328. See also his “Tres Empresas Periodísticas de Andrés Bello” in the same volume, pp. 307-314.

8. San Martín had appointed García del Río Minister of Foreign Relations in August 1821, and sent him to England in November of the same year. See Jaime E. Rodríguez O., The Independence of Spanish America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 217. For an account of García del Río's role in the press of the period, see Guillermo Guitarte, “El Papel de Juan García del Río en las Revistas de Londres,” in Bello y Londres, II, pp. 59-74.

9. García del Río to Echeverría, May 13, 1822, ACAB, Bandeja 4, Caja 36, No. 1218. Manuel de Salas (1754-1841) was a respected creole intellectual, educator, and leader of the early Chilean Republic.

10. “Prospecto,” Biblioteca Americana, No. 1 (April 1823), p. v.

11. Noah Webster, “Introduction to the Blue-Black Speller, 1783,” in Richard M. Rollins, The Autobiographies of Noah Webster (Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1989), pp. 68-79. Orthographic reforms have accompanied other revolutionary situations, particularly Russia after 1917.

12. Andrés Bello and Juan García del Río, “Indicaciones,” Biblioteca Americana, No. 1 (April 1823), 50-62. An English translation of this text by Frances M. López-Morillas is in Iván Jaksié, ed., Selected Writings of Andrés Bello (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 60-71. Bello expanded on the difference between Latin and Greek pronunciation, on the one hand, and that of Spanish, on the other, in his “Prosodia Castellana,” in Biblioteca Americana, No. 2 (1823), 24-40. He advocated the study of prosody in order to eliminate “vices that become incorrigible, corrupt language, and destroy language uniformity in the various provinces and states that speak it.” Prosody, it should be noted, was a standard subject in Latin grammars from the Middle Ages through the Renaissance and beyond. Bello maintained a focus on prosody in his grammatical studies.

13. On Bello's role in this journal, see Pedro Grases “El Repertorio Americano (Londres, 1826-1827),” in ESAB, II, pp. 329-355, and “Tres Empresas” by the same author.

14. Bello, “Bosquejo del Origen y Progresos del Arte de Escribir,” El Repertorio Americano, No. 4 (August 1827), 11-25. The translation is in Selected Writings, p. 58.

15. Bello's name is recorded in the Managers' Minutes of April 14, 1823, vol. 6, p. 386, Archives of the Royal Institution of Great Britain. For studies of the Royal Institution, see Morris Berman, Social Change and Scientific Organization: The Royal Institution, 1799-1844 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978), and Bence Jones, The Royal Institution: Its Founder and its First Professors (New York: Arno Press, 1975 [originally published in 1871]).

16. Andrés Bello, “Sociedad Parisiense de Enseñanza Elementar [sic],” in El Repertorio Americano, No. 1 (October 1826), p. 68.

17. Andrés Bello, “Colección de los Viajes y Descubrimientos que Hicieron por Mar los Españoles desde Fines del Siglo XV,” in El Repertorio Americano, No. 3 (April 1827), 194.

18. This hand-written manuscript was found in the Archivo de José Rafael Revenga in Caracas, and first published by the Dirección de Cultura of the Universidad Central de Caracas in 1950. Pedro Grases included it in ESAB, II, pp. 249-257 with his own study and notes under the title “Andrés Bello y la Universidad de Caracas: Dictamen sobre la Biblioteca Universitaria.”

19. For a good description of the Scottish Enlightenment, see Richard B. Sher, Church and University in the Scottish Enlightenment: The Moderate Literati of Edinburgh (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985). See also George Elder Davie, The Democratic Intellect: Scotland and Her Universities in the Nineteenth Century, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1964).

20. Llorens, Liberales y Románticos, p. 164. See also Antonio Alcalá Galiano, Recuerdos de un Anciano (Buenos Aires: Espasa-Calpe, 1951). Alcalá was one of the members of the Spanish community in Somers Town. His book was first published in 1878.

21. Emir Rodríguez Monegal, El Otro Andrés Bello (Caracas: Monte Avila Editores, 1969), pp. 80-81.

22. The Variedades, o Mensagero de Londres (1823-1825) was edited by Bello's friend Blanco White, who asked for his advice and invited him to collaborate. Bello commented on Puigblanch's philological work from Chile in 1831. See Bello, “Filología,” in OC, VII, 363-367.

23. Thomas Carlyle, The Life of John Sterling (London, New York and Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1907), pp. 66-67.

24. Bello to Gual, January 6, 1825, Latin American Manuscripts. Venezuela. Manuscript Department, Lilly Library, Bloomington, Indiana. An incomplete version of this letter is in OC, XXV, 142-144.

25. The words “from young Dunn” are scribbled on the back of letters from Blanco White dated July 8, 1821, September 13, 1821, and October 4, 1822. Colección de Manuscritos Originales, Fundación La Casa de Bello, Caracas, Venezuela [henceforth CMO], Box 2, items No. 14, 15, and 17, respectively.

26. Iris [Inés Echeverría Bello], Nuestra Raza: A la Memoria de Andrés Bello; Su Cuarta Generación (Santiago: Ediciones de la Universidad de Chile, n.d.), p. 7. Inés was the granddaughter of Juan, the first child of the Bello-Dunn marriage.

27. On Somers Town, see Claire H. G. Gobbi, “The Spanish Quarter of Somers Town: An Immigrant Community, 1820-30,” The Camden History Review, No. 6 (1978), 6-9. The area initially had a heavy French and Irish presence, and later received the influx of Spanish (and Spanish American) immigration.

28. These addresses are recorded in “Admissions to Reading Room, January 1820-November 1826,” Central Archives, British Museum. He used the address at Solls Road on April 14, 1823, when he became a subscriber at the Royal Institution. See note no. 15 in this chapter.

29. Definitive evidence that he was living at this address by February 15, 1827 is in “Admissions to the Reading Room, 1827-1835,” p. 4. Central Archives, British Museum.

30. Aurelio Espinosa Pólit, “Bello Latinista,” in Bello, OC, VIII, lxxvii.

31. Bello, “Informe al Papa Pío VII Redactado en Londres por Don Andrés Bello y Suscrito por Fernando de Peñalver y José María Vergara,” in OC, VIII, 457-469.

32. David Bushnell, The Making of Modern Colombia: A Nation in Spite of Itself (Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University of California Press, 1993), pp. 57-58. A brief survey of the relations between the Vatican and other Spanish American republics is by Leslie Bethell, “A Note on the Church and the Independence of Latin America,” in Leslie Bethell, ed., The Cambridge History of Latin America, vol. 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 229-234.

33. In addition to Donoso's biography of Irisarri cited in note 5, see John Browning, Vida e Ideología de Antonio José de Irisarri (Guatemala City: Editorial Universitaria de Guatemala) 1986, and Simon Collier, Ideas and Politics of Chilean Independence, 1808-1833 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), passim.

34. Irisarri to Echeverría, October 10, 1820. Quoted by Feliú Cruz in “Bello, Irisarri y Egaña,” p. 11.

35. Irisarri to Mercedes Trucíos, October 10, 1820, quoted in Ibid., 13.

36. Irisarri to O'Higgins, October 22, 1820, in Ibid., 27.

37. Bello to Irisarri, September 11, 1820, in Bello, OC, XXII, 613-615.

38. Irisarri to Bello, March 21, 1821, in OC, XXV, 104-105.

39. Irisarri to Bello, May 29 and June 1, 1822, CMO, Box 2, items No. 26 and 68. Francisco Ribas Galindo was the son of Venezuelan General José Félix Ribas. Although little is known about him, the younger Ribas appears to have been well connected in patriot circles. See J. León Helguera, “Tres Cartas de Nariño,” Boletín de Historia y Antiguedades 48, No. 555 (January-February 1961), 113-116. See also Berruezo, La Lucha, p. 262.

40. The terms of the loan are in Documentos de la Misión de Don Mariano Egaña en Londres (1824-1829), comp. by Javier González Echenique (Santiago: Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Chile, 1984), pp. 534-536. See also Frank Griffith Dawson, The First Latin American Debt Crisis: The City of London and the 1822-25 Loan Bubble (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990), pp. 32-34.

41. They are printed in Bello, OC, X, 429-433, and 437-442, respectively. For an overview of Chilean foreign relations during the period see Ricardo Montaner Bello, Historia Diplomática de la Independencia de Chile (Santiago: Editorial Andrés Bello, 1961).

42. In a letter dated November 25, 1820, Irisarri presented the matter of recognition to O'Higgins in even stronger terms: “no one knows what is to be recognized, a democratic or aristocratic republic, a monarchy, or a government without principles.” Quoted by Donoso, Irisarri, p. 105.

43. The text of the Constitution is in Luis Valencia Avaria, Anales de la República. Textos Constitucionales de Chile y Registros de los Ciudadanos que han Integrado los Poderes Ejecutivo y Legislativo desde 1810, 2nd ed. (Santiago: Editorial Andrés Bello, 1986), pp. 115-150. See also Brian Loveman, The Constitution of Tyranny: Regimes of Exception in Spanish America (Pittsburgh and London: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993), pp. 324-325. On Egaña's constitutional ideas and the failure of his project, see Collier, Ideas and Politics, pp. 277-286.

44. Webster, Britain and the Independence of Latin America, I, pp. 362-365.

45. Egaña's instructions are in Documentos de la Misión, pp. 32-34.

46. Christopher Nugent to George Canning, June 4, 1824, in Webster, Great Britain and the Independence of Latin America, I, p. 354.

47. Mariano Egaña to Juan Egaña, September 24, 1824, in Cartas de don Mariano Egaña a su Padre, 1824-1829 (Santiago: Sociedad de Bibliófilos, 1948), p. 31. A more tempered version appears in Documentos de la Misión, pp. 48-51.

48. Ibid. I translate from Feliú Cruz's, “Bello, Irisarri y Egaña,” p. 55, because his transcription of this letter includes some lines that were omitted in Egaña's Cartas.

49. Bello to Pedro Gual, January 6, 1825. Latin American Manuscripts. Manuscripts Department, Lilly Library.

50. Bello to Irisarri, February 3, 1825, in OC, XXV, 145-146.

51. “Nombramiento de Bello como Secretario de la Legación de Colombia en Londres,” CMO, Box 2, item no. 69. Bello's son Juan was born on the same day. Perhaps as a gesture of peace, he asked Mariano Egaña to be godfather to his child. Egaña agreed and attended the ceremony on February 13. That was not, however, the end of the tensions between them.

52. Gual to Bello, in OC, XXV, 140.

53. Gual to Bello, November 9, 1824, CMO, Box 2, item No. 71.

54. Bello to Gual, February 10, 1825, in OC, XXV, 149.

55. Mariano Egaña to Juan Egaña, May 25, 1825, in Cartas, p. 77.

56. Mariano Egaña to Juan Egaña, December 21, 1825, in Ibid., pp. 128-129. Irisarri sued the paper for libel, and won, because of its unfavorable coverage of his role in the transaction. The transcript of the trial, in which Bello served as witness, is in “Chilian Loan: A Report of the Trial of Yrisarri v. Clement, in the Court of Common Pleas, 19th December, 1825,” (London, 1826).

57. Mariano Egaña to Juan Egaña, November 20, 1826, in Cartas, p. 175. In Cartas de un Americano sobre las Ventajas de los Gobiernos Republicanos Federativos (London, 1826), Rocafuerte and co-author José Canga Arguelles had rebutted Juan Egaña's Memorias Políticas sobre las Federaciones y Lejislaturas en Jeneral i con Relación a Chile (Santiago: Imprenta de la Independencia, 1825). At the insistence of Mariano, Juan Egaña produced an ill-tempered counter-rebuttal that Rocafuerte and Arguelles ignored.

58. José M. de Mier, “Andrés Bello en la Legación de Colombia en Londres,” Bello y Londres, I, pp. 513-577.

59. Dawson, Debt Crisis, pp. 22-31.

60. Dawson, Debt Crisis, pp. 74-75; Bushnell, Colombia, pp. 59-60, and Antonio Vittorino, Relaciones Colombo-Británicas de 1823 a 1825 según los Documentos del Foreign Office (Barranquilla: Ediciones Uninorte, 1990).

61. Bello and Santos Michelena to the Minister of Finance (Colombia), November 15, 1826, in OC, XI, 112-115.

62. Bello to Revenga, February 8, 1826, in OC, XXV, 167.

63. Bello to Revenga, April 12, 1826, in OC, XXV, 182.

64. José María del Castillo y Rada to Andrés Bello and Santos Michelena, July 20, 1826, OC, XXV, 190-195. Oscar Sambrano Urdaneta provides a good summary of this affair in his introduction to vol. XXV of OC, lv-lxii.

65. Bello to Bolívar, December 21, 1826, in OC, XXV, 224-225.

66. Bello to the Minister of Foreign Relations, January 4, 1827, in OC, XXV, 231-235.

67. Bello to Manuel José Hurtado, January 10, 1827, in OC, XXV, 236-237.

68. Bolívar to Fernández Madrid, February 21, 1827, in Cartas del Libertador, V, pp. 387-388.

69. Paul Verna, “Bello y las Minas del Libertador. Andrés Bello Corredor de Minas y Bienes Raíces en Londres,” in Bello y Londres, I, pp. 469-486.

70. Bello to Bolívar, April 21, 1827, in OC, XXV, 296-297.

71. Revenga to Bello, April 30, 1827, OC, XXV, 307-308.

72. Bolívar to Fernández Madrid, May 26, 1827, in Cartas del Libertador, V, pp. 473-475.

73. Bolívar to Bello, June 16, 1827, in Ibid., pp. 491-492.

74. Bello explained to Bolívar that he was not in a position to complete the sale of the mines because the potential buyers, the Bolívar Mining Association of London, could not agree on terms and, it was Bello's suspicion, they did not have the means to afford it. Bello to Bolívar, January 3, 1828, in OC, XXV, 367-368. The mines were eventually sold, but not during Bolívar's lifetime.

75. Egaña to the Minister of Foreign Relations [José Miguel Solar], November 10, 1827, in Documentos de la Misión, pp. 447-448. It is difficult to determine why and when the shift in Egaña's attitude toward Bello may have occurred, but a good indicator of their improved relationship was Bello's sponsorship of Egaña as a reader at the British Museum's Library on March 29, 1827. See “Admissions to Reading Room, 1827-1835,” p. 7. Central Archives, British Museum.

76. José Miguel de la Barra to Andrés Bello, September 15, 1828, in Documentos de la Misión, pp. 609-610. De la Barra indicated that the government of Chile had approved Egaña's request of November 10, 1827, on May 6, 1828.

77. Bello to José Miguel de la Barra, September 19, 1828, in OC, XXV, 401.

78. Bello to José Manuel Restrepo, December 2, 1828, in OC, XXV, 407-408.

79. Bello to Fernández Madrid, February 13, 1829, in OC, XXV, 408-409.

80. Fernández Madrid to Bolívar, November 6, 1828. Quoted by Rodríguez Monegal, El Otro Andrés Bello, p. 130.

81. Bolívar to Fernández Madrid, April 27, 1829, in Cartas del Libertador, VII, pp. 127-128.