Get A Free Homepage! |
An Essay about Xicotencatl: a historical allegory about the aggression of Spain.
Xicoténcatl is a novel written and published in the 19th Century (1826). The novel had been published anonymously (though many are certain “that the Cuban priest Félix Varela could be the author…”(2)). Anonymity was not a bad idea either, because at the time “Spain’s American colonies began to move toward independence”(1). Due to this, the novel took on a role as “political propaganda, pushing for separation of the Spanish possessions from the mother country”(1). There are two reasons why we know that Xicoténcatl is a political novel: the first is that the city of publication was Philadelphia of the United States. Here, the Declaration of Independence for the US was written, discussed, adopted, and signed. It was one of the many “centers of political propaganda”(1). The second reason is that the topic of the novel deals with Spanish conquest of Mexico when the Aztecs had existed. Due to these factors, the novel is an historical allegory of current events (in the 19th century) taking place in the Caribbean and Mexico. Xicoténcatl's authorship is also grounds for examining the book's ulterior motives (propaganda, etc.). Many believe that Félix Varela wrote the novel, and if this were the case, his criollo/Cuban status would obviously hint as to why he wrote Xicoténcatl. Varela sought to spread his "anti-Spanish perspective"(back cover) through this work to other criollos during a time when Spanish-American colonies were rebelling against the Spanish crown. Similarly, his Cuban ancestry led him to write about the conflicts taking place there in both time periods.
Before discussing Xicoténcatl itself, a discussion of the differences between the conflicts occurring in the US Southwest and the Caribbean should be included. One of the differences between these conflicts are the players: in the US Southwest, the conflicts occur between the United States and Mexico, and in the Caribbean, the conflict occurs between Spain and its American colonies. The hostilities in the US Southwest were mostly about land, slave ownership rights, and citizenship. The hostilities in the Caribbean were mostly about independence from Spain. Both differences are key in the use of Xicoténcatl as an historical allegorical novel because of the place and the motive for rebellion both are similar to the conflicts that occur in the Caribbean and Mexico in the 1820s.
Also, the governments of the nations during the conquest of the Aztecs are important as well. The Aztec nation (referred to as Mexico in the novel) and its capital, Tenochtitlán (referred to as Mexico City) was large and beautiful. The government, however, was that of a dictatorship. The emperor, Moctezuma, was cruel, and other characters describe him as a “coward,” and a “vile monarch”(87). His actions are only summarized for historical purposes, and he is never heard from directly. In Tlaxcala, a nation residing on “four prominent hills…which extended from east to west”(8) and where the story is set, there exists a Republican government. The Republican type of government can be termed as having a foundation of liberalism: a “sovereign power [that] dwelt in a…senate, composed of members elected one for each party of those in the republic”(8). So the government of Tlaxcala was a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” (Lincoln, Gettysburg Address). This senate was eventually corrupted by Cortés in favor of the Spanish conquistadores, but it was for the following reason that the two nations (Mexico and Tlaxcala) were enemies: “the people had risen up against the excesses of his [the king or cacique] authority and, after recovering its sovereignty, it had become a republic”(8).
In order to summarize the events in Xicoténcatl, the characters and their relationships with one another are important. First is Hernán Cortés, a Spanish conquistador. “He is a ‘monster,’ a ‘barbarian,’ [and] a ‘murderer’…He is simply a ‘fortunate’ conqueror who proceeds always with unnecessary violence and cruelty”(4)—basically a bad man. He and a small group of Spanish soldiers eventually manipulate their way though Mexico, promising and betraying until all of the nations of Mexico have been conquered and/or destroyed. His concubine, slave, and confidante is doña Marina. She was originally from Tabasco, traded as a slave many times. Eventually she became the property of Cortés, and bore his child during the interval of the novel (1519-1521).
Xicoténcatl the Elder is an influential person politically. Before age and all its infirmities eventually force him to resign, he held the presidential chair of the Tlaxcalan Senate. He is described as being “a noble patriarch,” and “his moral strengths and attributes stand diametrically opposed to Cortés’s failings and moral weaknesses”(3). Xicoténcatl the Elder’s son, Xicoténcatl the Younger, is a general of the Tlaxcalan army. He wants the American armies to fight against the invading Spaniards because “the rivalry between Tlaxcala and Tenochtitlán [Mexico City] is much less dangerous and significant than their giving in to the Spaniards and collaborating with them against the Aztecs”(3). However, his inability to convince his fellow Tlaxcalans of this insignificant rivalry becomes not only his downfall, but also the downfall of the American nations.
The wife of Xicoténcatl the Younger, Teutila, is “a paragon of strength and honesty. Brave and generous…”(3). For a time, she is the prisoner of Cortés, who tries to seduce her, or in the end force her to be like Marina. However, she manages to remain chaste and escapes his prison. When her husband is doomed to die for political reasons, she then “undertakes to kill Cortés after learning of her young husband’s fate”(3). Though Teutila dies trying to save Xicoténcatl from being hanged by the Spaniards, “…her determination and courage make it clear to the reader that she is nobler in death than Cortés is in surviving her attempt”(3). Teutila is the namesake of her uncle, General Teutile of the Aztecs. His role in the novel is mostly for information and to help Teutila and Xicoténcatl’s problem of marriage between enemy nations. “There is no one better than you [Xicoténcatl] to save the present and future generations from their imminent desolation…your homeland is no longer Tlaxcala…an entire world turns to you as its liberator…my friendship and my niece’s affection will more than compensate you for the injury that my foolish credulity has done you”(84).
Another senator in the Tlaxcalan Senate is Magiscatzin, a rival of Xicoténcatl the Elder and his son. He is “a traitor to the cause of his people, subservient to Cortés and the Spanish cause”(8). Magiscatzin forces Xicoténcatl the Younger to go along with the decision of the Tlaxcalan Senate to help the invaders rather than side with the new Aztec emperor, Cuauhtémoc, to fight the Spaniards. In doing so, Magiscatzin helped bring about the fall of Tenochtitlán, Cortés’s destination from the start, and thus the fall of all the American nations. Another important character is Fray Bartolomé de Olmedo. He is a Catholic priest traveling with Cortés. An issue dealt with during the novel is that of the motive of the Spanish crown in coming to the Americas. Though Spain would like to say that it was to convert the Americans to Catholicism, it truly is not. In a conversation with the priest, Diego de Ordaz says, “this is hypocritical…our religion and our king…plays the smallest role in our conduct…[we] preach the religion of the True Immaculate One, making use…of iron and fire, intrigue and falsehoods, violation and robbery, and with no more counsel than the insatiable and frenetic ambition of command and wealth”(16). Even Marina, who by the end of the novel has regretted her role in Cortés’ conquest as a result of motherhood and the ranting of Magiscatzin on his deathbed, criticizes the priest’s hypocrisy. “Even though little instructed in the doctrine of this religion, about which you yourself vacillate and contradict yourself continuously, I see in you…the monstrous mixture of the most just and kind maxims with the most atrocious and iniquitous deeds, and the most profound and delicate discourses with the most foolish and contemptible absurdities”(120).
A final character to discuss is the Spaniard Diego de Ordaz. He “is worthy of respect; he is human and generous”(2). He “was a young man of good presence, clear and solid talent, and with a righteous and just heart. Educated with a love for virtue, his honesty had been sustained against the spirit of his century…”(15). He and Magiscatzin are the only ones in the novel who go against the general sentiment of their kind—Magiscatzin is a traitor to Tlaxcala and Ordaz is an honest, fair Spaniard. Ordaz’s uncommon honesty attracted the love of Marina, who was spurned by the virtuous Ordaz because he detected her treachery. Ordaz himself loved Teutila because she was like him—virtuous and honest. Though she admitted that she loved him, too, her affection for Xicoténcatl was greater and she married Xicoténcatl, who loves her as well. It is uncertain whether or not Cortés and Marina love each other, but together they produce a child.
Finally, to complete the idea of Xicoténcatl being an historical allegorical novel, two more observations must be made. First, Cortés is a representation of the anti-Spanish sentiment that the author wishes to convey to his fellow criollos. Since Cortés is completely evil (if you will) to the core, his personality aids to show that this novel is for propaganda purposes. Second, the use of the term “American” for the indigenous population of Mexico also hints to Mexicans (among other colonies) at the time that this novel is meant for them. American implies native, which in turn implies that the population of Mexico is native and therefore American, thus putting the Mexicans in the place of the Americans being conquered by the evil Spaniards (Cortés).
Why this novel is also a Latino/Latina novel besides being a “Latin American” novel is that it also deals with the mixing of cultures (Cortés with Marina), independence (topic of novel), and issues with nationality (Aztecs vs. Tlaxcalans) and gender (role of women like Teutila and Marina). Speaking of women, the role of doña Marina in Xicoténcatl is very important. Her role in history and in this novel was that of a traitor to her people by becoming the translator and confidante of Cortés, not to mention his lover and the mother of his child. “At first she is false, passionate, and sensual, driven by self-interest and her attraction to Cortés and the power derived from her association with him”(3). The other characters often spoke of her negatively: “Does the flame of love of country still burn inside you? Or have you been corrupted and contaminated by these men’s magical arts, arts that upset all ideas of what is just and unjust, good and evil”(59)? “That unworthy woman…”(66). However, others today are willing to see her in a completely opposite view. The legacy of La Malinche influenced the disdain of many feminist ideas in the 20th century because it had been believed that the weakness of women, more namely the weakness of La Malinche, caused the fall of the Americas…she let them in, she let their leader impregnate her, she was the traitor. Then in the 20th century, La Malinche, in giving birth to one of the first mestizo children in the Americas, was considered as “the symbolic mother of the nation”(4) that now exists. During the Chicano Movement in the 1960s in the US, Chicana women could identify with La Malinche because they were also called traitors by 20th century men for giving their feminized ideas for the advancement of the Chicano Movement.
In the article by Norma Alarcón, she discusses the role of women in the Chicano Movement, and refers also to La Malinche. Indeed, Alarcón suggests rightfully that La Malinche “may be compared to Eve, especially when she is viewed as the originator of the Mexican people’s fall from grace and the procreator of a ‘fallen’ people”(279). This supports the idea that La Malinche was the symbolic mother of Mexico because she could also represent Eve, the mother of all the earth’s children. Alarcón also asserts that as most of the people in the La Malinche documentary described La Malinche as a traitor, “in the eyes of the conquered…anyone who approximates [La Malinche]…in word or deed, is held suspect and liable to become a sacrificial monstrous double”(279). However, just as Chicana women in the 1960s changed their views, Alarcón puts forth the idea of “the scapegoating of…[La Malinche]”(279). Since the fall of the Aztecs, the Mexican culture has attempted to oppress wives and daughters to perhaps prevent another La Malinche. Alarcón summarizes the plight of Chicana women in saying “for many Chicanas, ‘to be a female human being trying to fulfill traditional female functions in a traditional way [is] in direct conflict’ with their creativity and inventiveness, as well as with their desire to transform their cultural roles and redefine themselves in accordance with their experience and vision”(285). Thus the role of women before the Chicano Movement had been small and contained to the home, but during the Chicano Movement, women from the Mexican culture tried to reinvent their roles in their own society though the legacy of La Malinche hung over them.
We felt that the book did an admirable job of presenting the author's views, especially considering the social turmoil of the time. It was an interesting account of a culture's struggle for independence/identity, and how a wholly new and unique culture could emerge out of their defeat. We also felt that the ideas about culture, betrayal, religious allusions, etc. connected with La Malinche (doña Marina) were interestingly complex. The author’s presentation of La Malinche (and the sentiment of many Latino/Latina people today) is somewhat unfair because of the success of the assimilation models presented by the other books. Personally, we feel that the blending of cultures to be a way to enrich both cultures, both in tradition and people. La Malinche was the first (or at least one of the first) to begin the assimilation of the indigenous with the European, thus perhaps saving part of Mexico’s culture when Europe might have destroyed it altogether.