SEARCHING FOR THE WRITING SUBJECT IN LA VIDA DE LA MONJA ALFÉREZ

210 Pages·2010·1.37 MB·English

SEARCHING FOR THE WRITING SUBJECT IN
LA VIDA DE LA MONJA ALFÉREZ:
AUTOBIOGRAFÍA ATRIBUIDA A DOÑA CATALINA DE ERAUSO

by
AMY CAHILL WILLIAMSON

A DISSERTATION

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Department of Modern Languages and Classics
in the Graduate School of
The University of Alabama

TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA

2010
Copyright Amy Cahill Williamson 2010
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ABSTRACT
The writing subject in the La Vida de la Monja Alférez: Autobiografía atribuida a Doña
Catalina de Erauso is a difficult subject to determine because of the apocryphal nature of the
text, the impact of multiple authors on the subsequent copies of the work, and the gender changes
of the protagonist. There have been many critical approaches implemented to study this text,
among them sociological, historical, feminist and formalist. All of these have added invaluable
information to the understanding of the text, but few have focused on all of the Erauso entities
manifested in the Vida.
Further investigation is warranted into the writing subject phenomenon in Early Modern
Spain to evaluate the messages that the collective writing subject is imparting. Applying Paul
Smith’s concept of the writing subject as a psychological collective entity that presents messages
to the reader (xxx), the work can be evaluated for the various messages presented by the
collective writing subject using the narrator and protagonist. Additionally, an evaluation of the
historical Erauso and the history of the text will aid in understanding the various points of entry
for other authors, editors, publicists and copyists.
Investigating the fields of Early Modern Autobiography, Soldier’s Autobiography as well
as the the various literary genres which are present in the text will clarify particular scenes that
contribute to the development of the protagonist. All of these areas of investigation will allow
the messages that the collective writing subject brings to the text to be analyzed. The writing
subject of Erauso’s life story can also be compared to the writing subjects of female soldier’s life
stories to establish similarities between the two. Conclusions can be drawn about the nature of
the collective writing subject, the importance of gender identity and the messages that the writing
subject delivers through a study of the text and an application of the criticism.
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to everyone who helped me and guided me through the
trials and tribulations of creating this manuscript. In particular, my family and close friends who
stood by me throughout the time taken to create this work.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am pleased to have this opportunity to thank the many colleagues, friends and faculty
members who have helped me with this research project. I am most indebted to Constance
Janiga-Perkins, the chair of this dissertation, for sharing her research expertise and wisdom
regarding the study of colonial literature, writing subjects in general and Catalina de Erauso in
particular. I would also like to thank all of my committee members, Larry Clayton, Bruce
Edmunds, Thomas Fox and William Worden for their invaluable input, inspiring questions, and
support of both the dissertation and my academic progress. I would like to thank my colleagues
in the Department of Modern Languages at Mississippi College who have provided on-going
support and advice. I am indebted to the librarians at Mississippi College, Carolyn Hood and
Hope Smith who facilitated my research so many times over the last few years.
This research would not have been possible without the support of my friends, students and of
course family who never stopped encouraging me to persevere.

iv
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………ii
DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………….…...iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………iv
1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………..….1
2. THE PROTAGONIST, THE HISTORICAL ERAUSO
AND THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT…………………………………………………..16

3. CONFIGURING THE NARRATING CHARACTER………………………...……..…62
4. CHARACTERIZING THE WRITING SUBJECT…………………………………….103
5. RECONCILING THE WRITING SUBJECT…………………………………...…..…136
6. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………...…………....174
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………....…198

v
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The Vida I Sucesos de la Monja Alférez: Autobiografia atribuida a Doña Catalina de
Erauso,1 which was written in c1646, continues to garner critical attention today among scholars,
students, and others because it still has something important to say after the millennium.2 Critics
have long debated the effectiveness of myriad critical approaches to this work. While
sociological, historical, feminist and formalist criticisms have provided an impressive amount
and depth of information about this work, they have also created more questions than they have
answered about this late baroque text. Because the Vida is a work of multiple authorship, a
matter to which I will return shortly, I find that the use of a different critical approach serves to
address some of the issues as yet unresolved among scholars.
As I read Erauso‟s3 purported autobiography in the early twenty-first century, I detect,
among the palimpsest of elements, the prominent role of the writing subject in presenting the
reader with the tools necessary to decipher the text. So it is that I would like to base my analysis
of the Vida on Paul Smith‟s concept of the writing subject: the psychological collective entity
that presents messages to the reader (xxx). The writing subject in Erauso‟s text manifests itself in

1 For the rest of the dissertation, I will refer to Rima de Vallbona‟s critical edition as the Vida.
2 In her monograph published in 2002, Sherry Velasco completed an exhaustive study of the iconic applications of
the Monja Alférez character. She included appearances made by the character throughout the intervening centuries
in broadsides, plays, and movies (1-11).
3 I plan to follow Mary Elizabeth Perry‟s example of avoiding gender-narrowing stereotypes. She uses the neutral
term “Erauso.” I will use both “Erauso” as well as the distinction I/Erauso and the specification narrator, writing
subject or protagonist. As Perry mentions, the narrating character chose to develop an identity with a masculine
gender, used a masculine name, and lived a masculine life, therefore describing this narrator with feminine
possessive adjectives would overlook the narrator‟s own preference. Another option would be to refer to the
narrator with feminine adjectives when the protagonist is living as a female and male adjectives when the
protagonist is living as a female. I believe, as Perry suggests, that Erauso is a less-gendered compromise.
(“Convent” 395)
1
the very first line of the body of the document: “Nací yo, Dª Catalina de Arujo”4 (33). Here, the
writing subject creates the first-person protagonist/narrator, I/Erauso, who will both participate in
and tell her story in the work. The mechanism of autobiography at work in the text means that
the “I” (auto) will tell or write (graphy) those events (bio) the subject deems important in order
to create this story/history. Conversely, a careful reading of the work should, in the analysis of
the protagonist/narrator‟s performance, reveal a configuration of the writing subjectivities
responsible for the creation of the text. Furthermore, among the varying types of results this
critical approach will provide, information about the writing subject as regards women, writing,
and the writing subject of this time period are perhaps its greatest yield. This approach is
particularly apropos for the Vida because of its murky history, multiple authorship, and the
consequent difficulty of establishing an adequate critical framework for reading it.
1.1 HISTORY OF THE TEXT
While the Vida has many of the hallmarks of an autobiography, its mission is mitigated
by the journey of the text itself. Since this document is apocryphal,5 it must be taken into
account that none of the copies can be compared to the original to establish consistency because
the original is lost (Pancrazio 457). The resulting numerous parallel versions of the principle
document have, over time, developed their own histories. Additionally, the various adaptations
have passed through many editorial hands, some of whom noted their changes and the reasons
for them; but, probably, there were others who were not as transparent.

4 Fitzmaurice-Kelly‟s English version is included in Vallbona‟s appendix. In order to maintain consistency with the
reading of the Vida, I will use his translation as well. His translation reads, “I, Doña Catalina de Erauso was
born…” (2).
5 Pancrazio considers the Vida to be “apocryphal” because “the text attributed to Erauso is characterized by
discursive instability that undermines any notion of implied authorship and authority” (457).
2
The version of the Vida that I am using as the source for this project is emblematic of the
complex process of authorship of the text: Rima de Vallbona‟s 1992 edition, titled, Vida I
Sucesos de La Monja Alférez: Autobiografia atribuida a Doña Catalina de Erauso. The source
for Vallbona‟s edition is a copy of the Vida that is part of the collection of Juan Bautista Muñoz.
The date the copy was completed is given as May 24, 1784 (3)6. This copy is housed in the Real
Academia de la Historia de Madrid under the number XXVIII A-70 (3). The title that Vallbona
gives for that document is: Vida i sucesos de la Monja Alférez, o Alférez Catarina, D[ª] Catarina
deAraujo [sic] doncella, natural de S[an] Sebastián, Prov[inci]a de Guipúzcoa. Escrita por ella
misma en 18 de Sept[iembr]e 1646 [sic] “volviendo de las Indias a España en el Galeón S[an]
Josef, Capitán Andrés Otón, en la flota de N[uev]a España, General D. Juan de Benavides,
General de la Armada Tomás de la Raspuru, que llegó a Cádiz en 18 de noviembre de 1646
[sic]” (3).
Historians like Vallbona have cited various discrepancies in the dates that appear in this
particular parallel version. The discrepancy of the date in this title, 1646, is the first error,
although the correct year, 1624 does appear at the end of the text (3). This, and other issues, will
be more closely considered in Chapter 2 of this dissertation. Another obvious matter is the date
noted on the copy, 1784, as it is believed that the original document was completed in 1625.
Taking into account the lack of an original manuscript and clear provenance, it becomes apparent
that for nearly 160 years the whereabouts of the document were uncertain.
Catalina de Erauso‟s involvement with the supposed original is difficult to establish. The
Vida is but one of myriad documents purported to have been written or dictated by Erauso in the

6 Unless otherwise indicated, the page numbers refer to Vallbona‟s edition of the Vida.
3
early seventeenth-century.7 Often understood as a parallel to the 1626 legal petition by Erauso to
King Felipe IV, the Vida was probably written in 1625. There is evidence that Erauso, or
perhaps Erauso‟s intermediary, gave the manuscript of this autobiography to Bernardino de
Guzmán. A well-known editor in Madrid, Guzmán forged his reputation by publishing fictional
texts (2).
In the absence of a clear provenance and authenticated original, the question of the
authorship of the Vida remains open. Many scholars assume either that the original author is
Erauso, or that Erauso directly retold stories of her life to another author who penned the
autobiography, a common practice at the time. This would be particularly believable given the
fact that authors of fiction, particularly picaresque texts and travel literature, frequented the
Editorial Guzmán in that era. Other critics have claimed that the document was created by
Cándido María Trigueros, a poet and dramatist who is described as having some talent but little
creativity (18).
Trigueros‟ name and reputation enter the discussion at this point because Juan Bautista
Muñoz is believed to have made his 1784 copy of the Vida from one of Trigueros‟ (17). The
critical concern for the legitimacy of the document is valid here as Trigueros was known for
producing several anachronistic documents and claiming to have discovered them (17-18).
However, Vallbona and other critics, while unable to absolutely disprove this idea, remain
unconvinced that this is the case with the Vida. Such disinclination is merited, as even in his
own day, the work of Trigueros was quickly discredited as aesthetically inferior (18).
Additionally, the critics find that Trigueros was probably not an accomplished enough author to
produce a work of this caliber, and that the anachronistic elements of the Vida are relatively few

7 In her “Apendice Nº 2” (129-50), Vallbona includes a petition attributed to El Alférez Herausso/El Alférez Erausso
as well as numerous other testimonies written by fellow soldiers about their time of service with Erauso (145).
4