(here is a link in case the picture does not load: http://coursesite.uhcl.edu/HSH/Whitec/LITR/5731/images/historic%20figures/malinche3.jpg )
It is definitely fair
to say that Townsend would have plenty to say about this image. Obviously, she
would point out that regarding Malintzin’s and Cortes’ facial depiction, it is
impossible to determine what she actually looked like. However, I think that
Townsend may say that this image is a romanticized version of the relationship
between Malintzin and Cortes that nevertheless has some truth to it.
Granted, while it may
be impossible to deduce how exactly she looked, Townsend would agree with the
attached picture in that Malintzin was a beautiful young woman (Townsend 37, 76).
It is interesting to observe though, that this picture depicts Malintzin in a
more western sense than a native one. What I mean by this is that had this
picture been created by someone with a native bias from around a generation
after Malintzin’s own lifetime, it wouldn’t depict her as a beautiful companion
to the chivalrous looking Cortes. A native living after Malintzin’s own
lifetime would have instead depicted her as a minor character (76) when
compared to the depictions of Spaniards. Yet, natives that had been
contemporaries of Malintzin would have depicted her as she is portrayed in the
picture, as a “significant presence” (63).
All in all, I think
that Townsend would have conflicting views when studying this picture. Clearly,
Cortes and Malintzin were of significant importance; however, they were not the
only players in the Conquest. While this picture does capture certain aspects
of the relationship between the two, I think that Townsend would find issue
with the romanticism depicted by the image.
I agree that Townsend would definitely have a problem with the romanticism of this image. In this picture Malintzin has her hands wrapped around Cortes' leg, which could be interpreted as her being a branch of Cortes as well as a loyal follower. I think we can agree that, in a way, Malintzin was a branch of Cortes. She was his interpreter and therefore said the same thing he said only in a different language. Cortes was the speaker, Malintzin was the mouthpiece. However, I think Townsend would have issue with the idea of Malintzin as a loyal follower of Cortes. Townsend paints Malintzin as, first and foremost, a survivor. She stresses that Malintzin did what she did to stay in the Spaniards' good favor. Townsend even says on page 82, regarding the possibility that Malintzin was offered a home by a Cholulan noblewoman if she would abandon the Spanish:
ReplyDelete"For if she valued her life at all, there could not have been any contest in her mind about remaining behind anywhere that the Spanish went."
Based on Townsend's writing, it seems to me that Malintzin would have been seen as more than just an appendage of Cortes. She seems to have been viewed as her own person, and a powerful one at that.
I agree that Townsend would have several problems with this depiction of Malintzin. In particular, this picture seems to play to the idea, introduced in Restall, that Malintzin was a "sexual siren" (86). The reasons for this are her attractiveness and how she is holding on to the man in the picture (who we assume is Cortes). This photo does, however, also play to the idea that Townsend brings up that Malintzin was not completely victimized (3). This is apparent through Cortes' looking down at Malintzin while she, in turn, is looking out at the audience.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing which becomes apparent as someone looks at this artist's rendition is that Cortes is wearing full knight armor like from the Middle Ages, as opposed to the partial armor (chest plate) that most Conquistadors wore.