civantos_amalia inside outside.pdf

8/10/2019 Civantos_Amalia Inside Outside.pdf

1/25


2/25

EXILE

INSIDE

(AND)

OUT:

WOMAN,

NATION,

AND

THE

EXILED

INTELLECTUAL

IN

JOSE

MARMOL'S

AMALIA

CHRISTINA

CIVANTOS

Many

of the

novels

in

19th

century

Latin American literature

which

most

closely

deal

with the constitution

of nation-states and national cultures

were

written

in

exile and/or

thematize

exile.

A

prime example

of this

is

Argentine

Jos? M?rmol's

Amalia.

The

novel,

in addition

to

having

been

written

in

exile

in

Montevideo

in

1851,

is riddled with exile

as

both

a

fear

and

a

hope.

Most studies

of this sentimentalist

novel focus

on

how the novel

represents

and

enacts

the

political

struggles

of

the time

between

Unitarians

and

Federalists

and

how

the

representation

of

women

and

romance

play

a

role

in

this

ideological

struggle.

Having

been

struck since

my

first

reading

of Amalia

by

the

recurrence

of

the

topic

of

exile,

the

uncertainty

surrounding

the

concept

of

nationhood,

and

the relative inversion of

prescribed gender

roles within

a

text

known

as

a

foundational national

novel,

I

have

struggled

to

make

sense

of the

connections between these three main

strands,

all nodes of

ambiguity,

within the novel.

Through

an

exploration

of

the intersection between

different

types

of

exile and

the

gendered

politics

of the

text,

I

would like

to

propose

here that

not

only

is

exile?every

bit

as

much

as

nation?at the

center

of

M?rmol's

novel,

but that exile in this novel

is

primarily

filtered

through

the female

protagonist

Amalia.

A

common

definition

of

exile is: 'when

you

can't

go

home and

yet

long

for return'?with the

reasons

for

not

being

able

to return

established

according

to

different criteria

(ideological

differences,

lack of

freedom

of

expression, danger of imprisonment, actual banishment). The writer, unable

to

return,

often

goes

back

through

writing.

Some

examples

of this from

19th

century

Latin American

literature

are

Villaverde's Cecilia

Vald?s,

G?mez

de Avellaneda's

Sab,

and Sarmiento's Facundo

(with

many

more,

and

differently

articulated,

examples

in

the

20th

century).

What makes Amalia

This content downloaded from 129.206.202.64 on Mon, 13 Oct 2014 04:33:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/25

56

Latin American

Literary

Review

stand

out

among

these

19th

century examples

is that

exile

is

also

a

constantly

recurring

theme

in

the

novel?yet

in rather

contradictory

ways.

Writing

in

exile

from the

Rosas

regime,

M?rmol

presents

us

with

a

'national

novel'

riddled

with

the

theme of exile.

The

novel

starts

out

with the

description

of

an

attempt

to

escape

into

exile

in

Montevideo?and

with the

first

of

many

debates

among

the

characters

about

the

ethicalness

of exile.

One of

those

trying

to

cross

to

Montevideo,

Eduardo

Belgrano,

points

to

the

differing opinions

about exile:

"es

necesario

dar

el

paso

que

damos... Sin

embargo

[...],

hay

alguien

en

este

mundo

de

Dios

que

cree

lo

contrario

que

nosotros

[....]

Es

decir,

que

piensa

que

nuestro

deber

de

argentinos

es

permanecer

en Buenos Aires

[...,]

que

menos n?mero de hombres moriremos

en

las

calles

el d?a de

una

revoluci?n,

que

en

los

campos

de batalla

en

cuatro

o

seis

meses,

sin

la

menor

probabilidad

de triunfo..."

(M?rmol

5)

Belgrano,

who

will

be

wounded

in the

ensuing

clash

with

Rosas'

troops,

is

referring

here

to

the

stance

of his

good

friend

Daniel

Bello.

M?rmol,

as

part

of

the

Generation

of

1837,

which

rejected

the

out

moded

classicism

that

kept

Argentina

locked

into

the battle between

Unitarians

and Federalists

while still

promoting

the Unitarian

ideals,

creates

a

protagonist,

Daniel

Bello,

who

is

a

protean

figure

who

switches between

a variety of roles in order to further his cause?the end of the Rosas regime.

Bello

uses

a

gaucho-inspired

weapon

and

when

necessary

plays

the

part

of

the

Federalist

very

well,

yet

it is

his

ability

to

execute

these

performances

with

eloquence

that is

the

marker

of

his

high

degree

of

'civilization.'

Bello,

as

part

of his

political

organizing

against

Rosas,

moves

back and

forth

between

Buenos Aires and

Montevideo.

During

one

trip

to

Montevideo,

while

meeting

one

of the

exiled

intellectuals

of the

Unitarian

old

guard,

Bello

explains,

to

the

surprise

of

his

interlocutor,

that

he is

not

an

?migr?,

but

rather,

that

he is

just

spending

a

few

hours

in

Montevideo.

(M?rmol

133)

Shortly

after

this,

the

narrator

also

makes

a

point

of

clearing up

Bello's

identity:

"Daniel

no era

emigrado;

no

conoc?a

esa

vida de

ilusi?n,

de

esperanza,

de

creaciones

fant?sticas,

que

despotizan

las m?s

altas

inteligencias,

cuando

la fiebre

de

la

libertad

las irrita

[....]"

(M?rmol

135)

What

emerges,

then,

is

a

picture

of Daniel

Bello

as

a

non-conformist?

someone

who

does

not

operate

within the

logic

of

Unitarian

versus

Feder

alist,

or

of exile

versus

non-exile.

Rather,

he

creates

a

third

category

of

gaucho-like

Unitarian

and

politically-mobilizing

migrant.

Furthermore,

it

would

seem

that

implicit

in

this

characterization

of

Daniel

is

a

criticism

of

the

false

hopes

and

fantasies

of exiles.

In contrast with the

daring

and

swash-buckling

hero of

Daniel,

we

have

Eduardo

Belgrano,

who

from

the

start

to

the finish

of the novel

is

attempting

to

leave

Buenos Aires?a

goal

which

he

does

not

reach

as

he and

Daniel

are

both

slain

by

Federalist

forces

just

before

escaping

to

the boat

which

was

to

transport

them

to

Montevideo.

Significantly,

while Daniel

is

a

courageous



4/25

Woman, Nation,

and Exile

in

Jos? M?rmol's Amalia

57

hero

of

legendary proportions,

it is in

Eduardo that

we

find the

emotional

core

of

the

novel. The melodramatic

pull

of

romance

that

is exerted

over

readers

is

found

in

the

blossoming

relationship

between

Eduardo

and the

novel's

title

character.

After his first

failed

attempt

at

fleeing

Buenos

Aires,

the

wounded Eduardo is

taken

by

Daniel

to

convalesce in the

secluded home

of Daniel's

widowed

cousin,

Amalia. Eduardo is the

more

melancholic and

Romantic of the

two

male

protagonists.

As he

hides

out

in

Amalia's

place

of

self-exile

(a

point

I

will

take

up

below)

on

the

outskirts of

Buenos

Aires,

we

see,

in

a

conversation between the

sweethearts,

another

aspect

of

exile:

"?[...]

Es

necesario

que

usted

salga perfectamente

bueno

de

mi

casa;

y

quiz?s

ser? necesario

que

emigre

usted?dijo

Amalia

bajando

los

ojos

al

pronunciar

estas

?ltimas

palabras."

(M?rmol

93)

The

word

"exile" is

so

charged

that it

is

almost

unpronounceable.

It wrenches

Amalia's heart

because

it

would

require,

at

least for

a

time,

a

separation

from her

beloved.

In

the

context

of

Eduardo and

Amalia,

the

Romantic

valences of exile

are

brought

out?the

separation

from

the

beloved

that

creates

a

longing

that is

almost reveled

in,

if

not

at

least

enjoyed

as

emotional

catharsis,

by

the reader.

But

for

Eduardo,

in his

political

life with

Daniel,

exile is

also

a

potential

betrayal

of the

even

greater

object

of

affection?la

patria,

the homeland.

The dilemma that Sandra Gasparini expresses concisely as "Una disyuntiva

dr?stica:

exilio de

o

conspiraci?n

en

la

patria,"

(Gasparini

54)

while it

does

not

pertain

to

the

larger-than-life

Bello,

describes

perfectly

the

quandary

in

which Eduardo

finds himself.

The

questioning

with which

the novel

opens

continues in

an

interchange

between

the

two

male

protagonists,

in

which

Daniel

states:

"?Si,

por

el

contrario,

los

sucesos no

alcanzan

ese

fin,

es

necesario

entonces

que

emigres"

and

Eduardo,

with

enthusiasm

driven

by

desperation,

responds "??Oh

S?,

vamos

al

extranjero,

Daniel,

el aire

de mi

patria

mata

a sus

hijos, hoy

nos

sofoca." But

his

enthusiasm

is

quashed by

Daniel'

s

hard-line

position:

"?No

importa;

es

necesario

respirarlo

como se

pueda

hasta

haber

perdido

toda

esperanza."

(M?rmol

174)

For

Eduardo,

exile

represents

a

relief from

risks and

pressures

that

he

can no

longer

withstand,

while

for Daniel it is

only

conceivable

as

a

last

resort.

Daniel's

strongest

expression

of

disapproval

of

exile

comes

early

in

the

novel,

at

the

first

anti-Rosas

political

meeting

he has

organized.

Daniel

offers

a

list and

figures

on

how

many

people

have

emigrated

to

Uruguay,

and then

declares:

?[...]

Creedme

amigos

m?os;

yo

estoy

m?s

cerca

de Rosas

que

ninguno

de

vosotros

;

yo

expongo

m?s

que

mi

vida

[...];

creedme,

pues,

que

el

peor

sistema

que

la

juventud

de

Buenos

Aires

puede

adoptar

en

el

deseo

que

la

anima

de la

libertad de

su

patria,

es

ausentarse

de ella.

?Ser?a

tan

desgraciado

que

no

hubiese

ninguno

de

vosotros

que pensase

como

yo

pienso?

(M?rmol

108,

emphasis

added)



5/25


6/25

Woman,

Nation,

and Exile in

Jos? M?rmol's Amalia

59

criticism

ofthose

who

choose

to

emigrate

continues when

the

next

political

meeting

that Daniel

calls is

barely

attended:

Daniel

[...]

hab?a

tenido

un

trist?simo

desenga?o:

el

15 de

junio

en

que

debi?

tener

lugar

la

segunda

reuni?n de

j?venes

en casa

de do?a

Marcelina,

se

encontr?

con

que

el

n?mero de los

asistentes

no

pasaba

de siete. La

mayor

parte

de

los

que

concurrieron

a

la

primera

reuni?n,

ya

no

estaban

en

Buenos

Aires,

sino

en

Montevideo,

o en

el

ej?rcito

libertador.

Daniel sufr?a mucho

por

el modo con

que

su sus

amigos

entend?an

sus

deberes

patrios.

(M?rmol

153)

Yet somehow

even

this situation

gives

Daniel

renewed

energy

for

his

cause,

and elsewhere in

the

novel,

as

the

narrator

comments

upon

a

document

pertaining

to

the

French blockade of El

R?o

de la

Plata

(1838

1843)

and

?migr?

leaders,

he

clearly

defends

the

?migr?s:

Esa

pieza

hist?rica

tiene

en

s?

misma el sello

de dos

verdades innegables que m?s tarde ser?n tema de largas

meditaciones

en

el

historiador de

estos

pa?ses,

como

lo

servir?n tambi?n de

comprobante

para

justificar

la lealtad

y

la moral de los

emigrados argentinos,

tantas

veces

acusados de

'vender'

y

sacrificarlos

intereses

y

los derechos

de

su

pa?s,

en

sus

relaciones

con

el

extranjero.

Estudiado

ese

documento,

no se

puede

menos

que

compadecer

ese

santo

infortunio

de

la

emigraci?n,

de

cuyos

tristes

efectos

no es

el

menos

notable,

ni

el

menos

desgraciado,

el

alucinamiento

a

que

da

ocasi?n,

aun en

los

esp?ritus

m?s serios.

[...]

(M?rmol

194-5,

emphasis

added)

In

this

passage,

the

narrator

explicitly

defends the

loyalty

of

the

?migr?s,

who have

been

wrongly

maligned

over

the

issue

of

French

intervention.

Moreover,

he

presents

as

the

appropriate

attitude

toward

the

exiles,

one

of

sympathy

and

pity?for

theirs is

a

situation of

saintly

misfortune.

Of

course,

while

considering

the

running

theme of

exile

in

Amalia,

we

must

take into

account

the

fact

that

novel's

author

wrote

it

in

exile,

while

experiencing

'ese

santo

infortunio

de

la

emigraci?n.'

In

April

of

1839

M?rmol

(1817-1871)

was

imprisoned

in

Buenos Aires for

23

days

for

having agitated

and

propagandized

against

the

Rosas

government.

During

that

period

he

wrote

his first

verses

on

the

wall of

the

jail

cell in

which

he

was

being

held.

In

November of

1840 he exiled

himself

to

Montevideo. The

fact

that he

had

been

imprisoned

for

anti-Rosas

activities

gave

him

entry

into

the



7/25

60

Latin

American

Literary

Review

Romantic Unitarian

exile circles

in

Montevideo,

in

spite

of his humble

origin.

He

soon

became

distinguished

as

a

writer

because

of his

poems

decrying

the

Rosas

tyranny,

poems

which

earned

him

the

title

"el

verdugo

po?tico

de Rosas."

Having

been

imprisoned

and

pushed

into exile

by

Rosas

opened

many

doors for M?rmol

among

the

literary

elite and

essentially

created

a

niche for

him;

however,

the intellectual

labor with which this

position presented

him

was

not

necessarily

an

easy

one.

Adriana

Amante,

in

a

study

of the

literary

production

of the exiles

from the

Rosas

regime living

in

Brazil,

describes the

generation

of Romantics of

which M?rmol

was a

part?those

who

wrote

during

the second

Rosas

government

(1835-1852)?by

saying

that

they

considered/imagined

their

country

"desde

un

lugar

inc?modo

por

su

excentricidad

(ideol?gica

y

geogr?fica)."

(Amante 69-70)

Amante

goes

on

to comment

on

the

role of the exiled intellectual

in

the

formation of the

nation,

responding

in

particular

to

Benedict Anderson's

definition of the

nation:

Desde

un

punto

de

vista

pol?tico,

la

patria

se

sale de

sus

bordes

y

contin?a

all? donde la

diaspora siga pens?ndola

y

obrando sobre ella. [...] Pero si la naci?n se imagina?

seg?n

Benedict

Anderson?como

una

comunidad

pol?tica

inherentemente

liberada,

soberna

y

limitada,

?qu?

pasa

cuando

esa

naci?n

est? siendo

imaginada

tanto

dentro

como

fuera de

sus

l?mites

geogr?ficos?

El

peregrinaje

del

exilio

se

convierte,

entonces,

en

otra

forma de

imaginar

la

naci?n.

[...]

[S]i

la

utop?a

de

la naci?n

constituida

es

el

no

lugar

deseado,

el exilio

es

el

lugar

no

deseado

desde el

que

la

enuncian.

(Amante 84-86)

In

Amalia

exile is both

a

fear and

a

hope;

it is both criticized

and

defended,

though

it

may

lean

toward the latter.

On the other

hand,

the

novel

was

written

from

the

space

of exile?it

represents

the

nation while

stretching

its

boundaries.

This leads

to

the

following question:

How does M?rmol

envision

and

construct

his

'nation-imagined-outside-of-the-nation'?

The novel's

presentation

of the nation

is

as

ambiguous

as

its

presen

tation of

exile.

In

Amalia the

nation is crossed

by

the

conflicting

desires

to

be

European

and

gaucho?to

be civilized

as

well

as

somewhat

barbaric?

and

in

particular

by

the dominance

of the

patria

chica,

or

small

homeland,

of

Buenos Aires.

Yet,

in

spite

of the

ambiguous?if

not

outright

contradic

tory?images

and

references

to

the

nation,

the love

for la

patria

keeps

coming

up

time and

again.

The

one

aspect

of nation-creation

that

is clear

in

Amalia

is

a

characteristic which

sets

it

apart

from

most

nationalist

projects.

As

Amante

states,

"El

proyecto

de

los rom?nticos

argentinos

no

es

una



8/25


9/25

62

Latin

American

Literary

Review

discursive

categories

were

central

to

the construction

of

an

Argentine

national

identity.1

Symptomatic

of the

way

in

which these

terms

were

used,

in

Amalia,

alongside

of Daniel's

stated

interest

in

being

a

European

in

America,

there

is

an

interest

in

barbarism

as a source

of authentic

Argentineness.

Elsewhere

in

the

text

the desire

to

embrace

Europeanness

seems

to

be

forgotten,

as

the

gaucho

is

presented

as

the

uniquely

Argentine

figure.

The

gaucho

himself

has

an

interesting

position

in

Argentine

cultural

history.

As

Josefina

Ludmer

has made

clear,

the

once

maligned

gaucho emerged

from

his role

as

part

of

the

wars

of

independence

as

the

national character

of

Argentina?a

figure

for

the

heroic

yet

ruggedly

individualistic

persona

which certain

Argentines

wished

to

project.2

At

the time

when

M?rmol

wrote,

most

Argentine

writers

were

still

looking

to

Europe

for cultural

orientation

rather

than

exalting

the

gaucho

as

the authentic

criollo.

Nevertheless,

in

Amalia,

within

a

flowery description

of the

pampas,

we

find

the

following

passage:

Naturaleza

especial

en

la

Am?rica,

Naturaleza madre

e

institutriz

del

gaucho.

Ese ser que por sus instintos se aproxima al hombre de

la

Naturaleza,

y

por

su

religi?n

y

por

su

idioma

se

da

la

mano con

la sociedad

civilizada.

Por

sus

habitudes

no se

aproxima

sino

a

?l

mismo;

porque

el

gaucho argentino

no

tiene

tipo

en

el

mundo,

por

m?s

que

se

ha

empe?ado

en

compararlo,

unos

al

?rabe,

otros

al

gitano,

otros

al

ind?gena

de

nuestros

desiertos.

La

Naturaleza

lo

educa

[....] y

la

libertad

y

la

independencia

de

instintos

humanos

se

convierten

en

condiciones

imprescindibles

de

la vida

del

gaucho. (M?rmol

212)

The

gaucho

is

presented

here

as

the

quintessential

Argentine:

he

is

a

purely

and

specifically

Argentine

figure

the

likes of

which

are

not

found

anywhere

else.

It is

important

to

note,

though,

that this

version

of the

gaucho

is

a

person

whose

character is

formed

through

contact

with

"civilization,"

but

primarily

by

the natural

forces

of the

pampas.

This

would

seem

to

contradict

the vision

of

"europeos

en

Am?rica."

Other

references

to

gauchos

in Amalia

temper

this

reading,

as

they

certainly

do

try

to

bring

together

the

opposing

forces of

civilization

and

barbarism.

One

of these

descriptions

is of

one

of the few

servants in

the

novel,

who

is

presented

in

a

purely

positive

light.

Daniel Bello's

servant,

Ferm?n,

is described

as

waiting

for Daniel

"tranquilo,

como

buen

hijo

de la

pampa,

el

gauchito

civilizado

en

quien

[Daniel]

depositaba

toda

su

confianza,



10/25

Woman,

Nation,

and Exile

in

Jos?

M?rmol's

Amalia

63

porque

realmente

la

merec?a"

(M?rmol 92). Additionally,

Daniel himself

is

sometimes

gaucho-like

in his

practices?in

particular

in

his

weapon

of

choice,

a

network

of

leather

cords

and balls

which is

highly

reminiscent

of

boleadoras?the

gaucho

hunting

implement.

Should the

Argentine

to

be

European

or

gaucho?highly

civilized

or

somewhat

barbaric?

Given that

M?rmol'

s

characters

promote

both

(as

long

as

those

in

charge

are

the

more

European)

the

text

seems

to

promote

a

watered-down

hybrid.

What

is

most

striking

about

this

formulation and its

use

of

the

gaucho

is that

during

that

period

the

gaucho

was

directly

linked

to

Rosas. Rosas' actual

power

base

was

among

caudillos and their

gaucho

troops,

and the characteristics of

barbaric

savagery

were

held in

common.

Yet in

Amalia

the

gaucho

is

cleansed of

any

connection

to

Rosas

and the

forces

of

civilization

and

barbarism

are

concentrated

within

the

Buenos

Aires

political

realm?the

suaveness,

astuteness,

and

eloquence

of

Unitar

ians and

neo-Unitarians

(Daniel)

versus

the

ignorance

and bad

taste

of

Rosas

and his

minions.

But

one can

only

be

so

European

while still

being

Argentine.

In

order

to

support

the

sovereignty,

or

political

distinctness,

of

the

Argentines,

some

element of

cultural

difference,

however

small,

must

be

included in

that

which isArgentine. And this element is the gaucho?a gaucho disinfected

from

contact

with

Rosas.

On

one

hand,

the

opposition

between

civilization

and

barbarism

is

somewhat

settled

by

the

hybrid

figures

of

Daniel

and

Ferm?n,

but

on

the other

hand,

it

rages

on

in

the battle of

clever

stylishness

waged against

Rosas,

a

battle led

by

the

same

hybrid

political

mediator?

Daniel.

While the

gaucho

is

positioned

as

a

figure

for

Argentina

as

a

whole

and

the

hybrid

Daniel

fights

to

save

Argentina,

the

conceptualization

of

this

whole,

the actual

composition

of

Argentina,

remains

quite

unclear. The

geographic spaces traditionally analogous

to

civilization and

barbarism in

Argentine

discourses?Buenos

Aires

and the

provinces

of

the

interior?are

not

both coded

as

such.

Amalia,

the

representative

that

we

have

of

the

interior,

is

in

no

way

barbaric,

but

rather

an

elegant,

refined

Unitarian.

While

this

bolsters

the

interpretation

of the

novel

as

formulating

a

European

identity

with

a

few

drops

of

barbarism

to

allow

for

a

gaucho

icon,

it

heightens

the

ambiguity

surrounding

the

components

of

the

would-be

Argentine

nation.

Before

continuing

we

must

consider

the

ways

in

which

certain

terms

for

group

identification

found in

the

novel

were

typically

used

during

that

period.

Chiaramonte

describes

the

multiple

co-existing

frames of

identity

present

during

the

early

independence

period

in

the

following

way:

coexist?an

variadas

identidades

que

se

defin?an

en

funci?n

del

plano

de

relaciones

que

las

solicitase.

Ubic?ndonos

en



11/25

64

Latin American

Literary

Review

una

regi?n

dada, la

rioplatense

por

ejemplo,

podemos

observar

que

se era

espa?ol

frente al

resto

del

mundo,

espa?ol

americano

frente

a

lo

espa?ol

peninsular, rioplatense

frente

a

lo

peruano,

provinciano

frente

a

lo

capitalino,

porte?o

frente

a

lo cordob?s...

La

dominaci?n

espa?ola

no

dej?

otra

cosa

que

un

mosaico de sentimientos

de

pertenencias

grupales,

con

frecuencia manifestados

como

colisi?n

de

identidades

[...]

(Chiaramonte

62)

Chiaramonte goes on to delineate the valences of certain terms that in our

day

have

taken

on

quite

different

connotations

and

even

distinct

meanings.

For

instance,

the word

"ciudad."

Although

the

legacy

of the

borders

of the

Spanish

colonial

administrative units

is

noticeable

in

many

of the

post

independence political

entities,

close

observation of

the

political

restructur

ing

also

reveals

many

discrepancies

with

the

larger

colonial administrative

divisions.

And this is

precisely

because

the

sovereign

entities

of

the colonial

period

were

not

the

Intendencias,

the

Audiencias,

or

the

Virreinatos,

but

rather

the cities

and their

Ayuntamientos,

or

city

halls.

(Chiaramonte

62-63

and

75-77)

For

this

reason,

two

terms

for

group

identification

found

in

Amalia

were

actually

understood

quite

differently,

from

the late colonial

period

and

into the second

half

of the 19th

century,

than

they

are

today.

Chiaramonte,

through

the

analysis

of

newspapers,

magazines,

and other

publications

of

the

time,

elucidates

how the

now so

seemingly organic

term

"Argentina,"

and its

adjectival

forms,

came

into

use.3

What

concerns

us

most

here is that

during

the

first

decades

of the 19th

century,

both

before and after

indepen

dence,

the word

"argentino"

was

equivalent

to

"porte?o"?from

or

related

to

Buenos

Aires and

its

immediate

surroundings.

However,

after

indepen

dence the term

began

to be used with a broader

meaning

only

among

the

inhabitants

of

Buenos Aires.

That

is,

for

a

bonaerense the

province

of

C?rdoba

was one

of

what

they

termed

"las

provincias

argentinas,"

but

not

so

from the

perspective

of

someone

from

C?rdoba.

Chiaramonte

astutely

points

out

the

implications

of such

usage:

Podemos

pues

considerar

que

el

uso

literario

de

Argentina,

ya

como

calificativo,

ya

como

sustantivo

que

designa

un

pa?s

-en

el sentido

restringido

de

esta

palabra-,

se

da

entre

escritores de Buenos Aires para designar expatria, tambi?n

en

sentido

restringido:

esa

ciudad

y

su

entorno.

Pero

que

el

alcance

territorial

del

t?rmino

puede

expandirse

en

la

medida

que

se

considere

una

relaci?n

de

posesi?n,

por

parte

de

Buenos

Aires,

del

resto

del

territorio del

Virreinato.

(69)



12/25

Woman,

Nation,

and

Exile

in

Jos? M?rmol'

s

Amalia

65

But

two

decades after

independence,

in

the late

1830's

when

the

porte?os'

politics

shifted toward

autonomy,

the

use

of

the

term

was

also

inverted.

Although

by

this

point

"Argentina"

was

the

name

that had been

generally

agreed

upon

as

that of the

nation

being

constructed,

natives

of

Buenos

Aires

rejected

the inclusion

of the other

provinces

in

the

term

"Argentina"

while

those from the littoral

and interior

provinces

insisted

upon

their

Argentineness

and criticized

the

porte?os'

attitudes

to

the

contrary

(Chiaramonte

231-2).

Likewise,

in

the late

colonial

period

the

term

"patria" generally

referred

to

one's

city,

but also indicated

one's

place

of

birth,

such

that

it

could

also be used

to

refer

to

one's

province

or

nation-state

(first

Spain,

then

Argentina)

and this fluctuation

in

meaning

continued into the

mid-1800's

(Chiaramonte

78).

It

is

very

noteworthy

then

that

in

Amalia

the

term

"Argentina"?in

spite

of its

instability

at

that

time?is used

consistently

to

refer

to

the

nation

state

of

Argentina

and

all

of

the

people

of the

territories that that nation

was

sketched

out to

encompass.4

Yet

at

the

same

time,

in

keeping

with the

predominance

of the

city

and the shifts

in the

usage

of

"patria,"

this nebulous

term

is

repeatedly

invoked,

usually

in

the

context

of sentiment toward the

nation,

often

designating

what

has later been defined

as

"patria

chica,"

one's

city or region, and just as often remaining abstract and vague. Thus, these

two

designations

run

through

the

text

and

run

into

each

other;

the conscious

ness

of

a

nation-state that is

still

very

much

in-the-making

runs

contrary

to

localized,

or

ambiguously

located,

patriotism.

Most

importantly,

this

ten

sion and

ambiguity regarding

the

contours

of

the nation

arises

through

Amalia herself.

In

one

of

the

few

scenes

in

which Amalia socializes outside

of her

home,

a

curious

conversation takes

place.

At

a

party

in

Buenos

Aires,

because

no

one

knows

her,

instead

of

being

asked

to

dance,

Amalia

remains seated

next to

an

old

Unitarian

woman.

The

elegant, upper-class

woman

strikes

up

a

conversation with

Amalia,

because,

as

the

narrator

explains,

they

are

able

to

identify

each other

as

Unitarians

by

their

attire:

?Creo

que

?sta

es

la

primera

vez

que

tengo

el honor de

ver

a

usted.

?Acaso

ha

llegado

de

Montevideo?

?No,

se?ora,

resido

en

Buenos

Aires hace

alg?n

tiempo.

??Alg?n

tiempo

Entonces,

?no

es

usted de Buenos

Aires?

?No,

se?ora,

soy

tucumana.

??Ah

Bien

me

lo dec?a

yo,

?era

imposible

que

usted

no

hubiera

llamado

la

atenci?n,

si fuera

usted mi

compatriota

?Sin

embargo,

creo

tener

el

honor de

ser

compatriota

de

usted,

se?ora.

?S?,

s?;

en

cuanto

a

argentina

[sic]

;

quiero

decir de

Buenos

Aires.

?Es

cierto,

soy

provinciana,

como nos

llaman

aqu??dijo



13/25


14/25

Woman, Nation,

and

Exile

in

Jos?

M?rmol's Amalia

67

or

his

patria grande. Regardless

of

the

political

realities of the time

(the

fact

that

Buenos Aires

still had

a

tenuous

relationship

with the

rest

of the

Argentine

provinces5

)

we

know

from

Chiaramonte's

work and

the

example

of Sarmiento's

Facundo

o

civilizaci?n

y

barbarie

(1845)

that the

term

"Argentina"

was

used

then,

albeit with

shifting

meanings.

The

absence

of

the

term

"Argentina"

and

repeated

use

of

"patria"

for

Buenos Aires

in

Cantos

del

peregrino

show that

during

M?rmol's

first

years

of

exile,

not

only

did

he understand

"patria"as

the

patria

chica of

Buenos

Aires,

but he

did

not

need

to

refer

to

the other

provinces, collectively

or

otherwise,

as

"Argentine

because

he felt

no

sentimental

or

political

connection

to

them.

The

comparison

of Amalia with Cantos del

peregrino

reveals that

by

the time

he

wrote

Amalia,

M?rmol'

s

concern

had

shifted

from the

expression

of

longing

for

his

patria

chica

to,

on

the

one

hand,

the cultivation

among

his

readers of

amore

politically pragmatic,

sentimental connection

to

the

patria

grande,

and,

on

the other

hand,

a

consideration

of his

role

as

an

exile

vis-?

vis

la

patria?chica

y/o

grande.

Perhaps

M?rmol realized that his

political

opponents

were

very

sure

of

the

contours

of the

nation

for which

they

were

fighting?in

the

novel

Rosas

insists that

Mandeville,

a

representative

of the

British

crown,

refer

to

the

local

conflicts

as

"nuestras

guerras"

or

"las

guerras argentinas," not "las guerras locales" or "las guerras americanas"

(M?rmol 167)?and

this

drove

M?rmol

to

make

an

effort

to

bring

together

the smaller homelands

of the

separate

provinces,

however

tenuously.

The

elegant

old

Unitarian

woman

who,

in

her

conversation with

Amalia,

identifies herself

as

from

Buenos

Aires?not from

Argentina?is

later

criticized

by

Daniel Bello

as

"la unitaria m?s

intransigente;

la

porte?a

m?s

altiva

que

creo

ha

existido

jam?s"

(M?rmol

115).

In

this

way,

in

Amalia,

M?rmol does make

some

attempt

to

discredit

hard-line

unitarianism and

its

concomitant

privileging

of

the

patria

chica of

Buenos

Aires.

However,

the

novel's

picture

of

the nation

never

becomes

particularly

clear

because,

as we

shall

see

in

the discussion

of

Amalia

below,

the

relationship

between the

provinces

and Buenos Aires

is

ultimately

tied

to

the

issue

of

exile.

Although

the co-existence

of

various

patrias

chicas could

suggest

a

more

fluid,

plural

formulation of

the

nation,

it

would

only

be

so

if

the

emotional ties

to

the nation

were

also

allowed

to

be free form

(and

if the

grouping

of

communities

were

non-hierarchical).

Yet,

in

Amalia,

love

of

country?whatever

the definition

of

that

country

may

be?is

a

constant

theme.

In

a

conversation

between

Eduardo and Daniel it

comes

out

that

though they

try

to

dream of future

happiness, they

are

incapable

of

doing

so

while the

homeland

is

not

happy:

??Perfecto,

perfecto,

Daniel

[...]

Y

olvidaremos

esos

d?as

p?lidos

de

nuestra

juventud:

esa

?poca

terrible

en

que

hemos vivido

con

el

pu?al

al

pecho,

viendo

deshojarse



15/25

68

Latin American

Literary

Review

las

mejores

ramas

de

la existencia

de

la

patria y

...

??Lo

ves?

?no

te

lo

dije?

?ramos

muy

felices hace

un

instante

con

las

promesas

de

nuestra

imaginaci?n,

y,

sin

saber

c?mo,

arrojas

t?mismo

en

nuestra

copa

de n?ctar

esa

gota

amarga

de

los recuerdos

patrios.

(M?rmol 115)

Further

on

in the

text

Daniel

declares

to

himself,

as

if in

response

to

his

earlier

question

about

the

necessity

and

durability

of

the

Argentine

nation:

"S?

tengo

fe

en

el

porvenir

de

mi

patria.

Pero

se

necesita

que

la

mano

del

tiempo

haya

nivelado

con

el

polvo

de

que

hemos

salido,

la

frente

de

los

que

hoy

viven.

S?,

tengo

fe,

pero

en

tiempos

muy

lejanos

de los nuestros.

?Patria,

patria

?la

generaci?n

presente

no

tiene

sino el

nombre de

tus

padres "

(M?rmol

143)

In

Amalia,

love

of

country

is fomented

to

authenticate

and

support

concrete

political

interests.

Although

the

foundation

of the nation

is

not

mythologized,

its

existence

is

legitimated

by

the

emotions

felt for

the

patria

and

these

feelings

are

cultivated

by

linking

patriotism

with

romantic

love,

by

equating

love

of

country

with the love

of

a woman.

Likewise,

the

tricky

situation

of

the exile

commenting

on

national

politics

is

negotiated

via

the beloved.

In

both

cases,

this

beloved

woman

is

Amalia,

la bella

tucumana.

The links M?rmol' s novel creates between the emotional ties topatria

and the

emotional

ties

to

a

beloved

woman

are

evident

in the

following

passage,

in

which

the

narrator

describes

the

emotional

suffering

of

the

second

generation

of

exiles

from

Rosas'

regime:

[...]al

sentimiento

de la

patria,

de la

familia,

del

porvenir,

se

mezclaba

siempre

la

ausencia de

una

mujer

amada

[....]

La

mano

de

Rosas

interrump?a

en

el

coraz?n de

esos

j?venes

el

curso

natural

de las

afecciones

m?s sentidas:

la

de

la patria y

la

del

amor.

Y

en

la

peregrinaci?n

del

destierro,

en

los

ej?rcitos,

en

el

mar,

en

el

desierto,

los

emigrados

alzaban

su

vista

al cielo

para

mandar

en

las

nubes

un

recuerdo

a

su

patria

y

un

suspiro

de

amor a

su

querida.

(M?rmol

89,

emphasis

added)

M?rmol'

s

text

presents

as

accepted

truth

that it

is natural

that

one's

strongest

emotions

be

those

for the

patria

and

the amada

and

creates

a

certain

parallelism

between

the

two

types

of

affection.

Although

in the

passage

above

the

narrator

goes

on

to

say

that

the exile's

heart

suffers

even

more

for

the

beloved,

the

parallelism

between the

two

emotions

is

reaffirmed

in

a

later

section

of

the

novel,

in which

Daniel

exclaims

to

Eduardo:

?T?,

Eduardo.

T?

que

acabas

de

hablar

como

un

gran

fil?sofo

en

nuestra

reuni?n,

y

unos

minutos

despu?s

no



16/25

Woman,

Nation,

and Exile

in

Jos? M?rmol's

Amalia

69

haces

sino

sentirte,

como

cualquier pobre diablo,

enamorado

de

una

mujer.

Acabas

de

pensar

en

la

patria,

y

est?s

pensando

en

Amalia.

Acabas

de

pensar

c?mo

conquistar

la

libertad,

y

est?s

pensando

como

[sic]

conquistar

el

coraz?n

de

una

mujer.

Acabas de echar de

menos

la

civilizaci?n

en

tu

patria,

y

echas de

menos

los

bell?simos

ojos

de

tu

amada.

Esa

es

la

verdad

Eduardo. Ese

es

el

hombre,

?sa

es

la

naturaleza.

(M?rmol

114,

emphasis

added)

Here

once

again,

"the

truth"?the

very

essence

of

man

and

of nature?is

to

love and

long

for one's

homeland

and one's

beloved,

is for

the

two

desires

to

be

parallel

and linked. The

effect

of

this

on

M?rmol's

(contemporary)

male

readership

is

to

encourage

these

emotions

in

tandem,

to

generate

the

notion

that one's

feelings

for the

homeland

must

be

as

strong

as

those for

one's

beloved.

Similarly,

the effect

on

M?rmol's

(contemporary)

female

readership

is

to

make

male

expressions

of

patriotism

tantamount to

expres

sions

of love for

the beloved.

In

this

way,

the

novel

serves

to

create

what

Benedict Anderson

refers

to

as

the

"emotional

legitimacy"

of nationalism

(Anderson

4).

Yet the very figure who is the object of Eduardo' s romantic desire, and

who in

that

sense

evokes the

nation,

is

linked

to

the

situation

of exile.

In

the

conversation

between

the

old

Unitarian

woman

and

Amalia that

was

discussed

above,

the

older

woman

reacts

with

great

enthusiasm

to

Amalia'

s

self-introduction.

Recognizing

Amalia'

s

name,

she

presents

the

description

of

Amalia that

others have

given

her:

"?Una

pobre

viuda

que

no

tiene

rival

en

belleza,

y

que,

seg?n

dicen,

ha

hecho

de

su

casa

un

templo

de

soledad

y

buen

gusto "

(M?rmol

102-3,

emphasis

added)

Already

here

we

have

a

hint

of

Amalia's

state

of

exile;

it

becomes

even

clearer

in

her

conversations with

Daniel

and

Eduardo.

Amalia describes

her situation

while

talking

with

Daniel

after

he

has

brought

Eduardo

to

her house

to

hide

out

and

recuperate:

"?

[...]

Yo

soy

libre;

vivo

completamente

aislada,

porque

mi

car?cter

me

lo

aconseja

as?;

recibo

rara vez

las

visitas

de

mis

pocas

amigas

[....]"

(M?rmol

16)

Later,

in

a

conversation with

Eduardo,

she

explains

her

situation in

more

detail:

?[...]

Un

destino cruel

parece que

esper?

mi

nacimiento

para

conducirme

en

el

mundo. Todo

cuanto

puede

hacer

la

desgracia

de

una

mujer

en

la

vida,

lo sell?

en

la

m?a la

naturaleza. La

intolerancia

de

mi

car?cter

con

las

frivolidades

de

la

sociedad;

los

instintos de

mi

alma

a

la libertad

y

a

la

independencia

de

mis

acciones;

una

voluntad

incapaz

de

ser

doblegada

por

la

humillaci?n

ni

por

el

c?lculo;

una

sensibilidad

que

me

hace

amar

todo

lo

que

es

bello,

grande



17/25

70

Latin

American

Literary

Review

o

noble

en

la

naturaleza;

todo

esto,

Eduardo,

todo

esto

es

com?nmente

un

mal

en

las

mujeres

;

pero

en

nuestra

sociedad

americana,

tan

atrasada,

tan

vulgar,

tan

alde?nica,

puedo

decir,

es

m?s

que

un

mal

es una

verdadera

desgracia.

Yo

tuve

la

dicha de

comprenderla,

y

entonces

quise

aislarme

de

mi

patria.

Para

vivir

menos

desgraciada,

he vivido sola

despu?s

que

qued?

libre;

y

acompa?ada

de mis

libros,

de

mi

piano,

de

mis

flores,

[...]

he vivido

tranquila

y...

tranquila

solamente.

(M?rmol

124-125;

emphasis

added)

Amalia is

alone,

and

at

peace,

but

not

happy;

moreover,

she is

essentially

exiled from her

homeland?'aislada de

su

patria.'

Amalia

is exiled

through

her

position

as a

tucumana

and

also

as a woman.

In

a

sense,

as a

provincial

within

Argentina,

and

especially

within Buenos

Aires

itself,

Amalia's

state

of exile

is

overdetermined?she

is

'always already'

exiled

from the

nation

of

Argentina.

The

same

is

true

for her

as a woman

with ideas different

from

those of her

society.

She

chooses

to

exile herself

from

Buenos

Aires/

Argentina/la

patria

by living

a

solitary

existence

in

a

house

on

the outskirts

of the

city

of

Buenos

Aires.

With this heroine, the novel presents a character who is an actual exile,

unlike Eduardo

who

never

makes it

to

his selected

place

of exile

(Montevideo)

and unlike Daniel

who,

as

the

narrator

clearly

states,

with

his back-and-forth

movement

is

not

an

exile. But rather

than

an

external

political

exile,

Amalia

is what

can

be referred

to

as an

internal

exile.

After

being

shut

out

of

Argentine

society

because

of the

conflict

between

prescribed gender

roles

and her

own

"manly"

inclinations,

Amalia

decides

to seclude

herself

on

the

edges

of

the

city

of Buenos

Aires. She

attempts

to create

her

own

boundaries

that others

cannot

cross

without

her

permission.

When her house

becomes

the

object

of Federalist

scrutiny,

after

she has taken

in

Eduardo,

she

moves

to

a

second

place

of internal

exile,

"la

casa

sola."

Because of

Eduardom

and with

him,

she

moves

to

another isolated

house

on

another

edge

of

the

city.

Interestingly,

when Daniel

makes his

strongest

statement

against

exile

(in

a

passage

mentioned

previously

in

which he wonders

whether

he

is the

only

one

left who

is

against

exile),

his words

contain

a

curious

statement

regarding

women

and exile.

While

speaking

in

the first anti-Rosas

political

meeting

he

declares:

"?[...]

La

emigraci?n

deja

en

poder

de las

mujeres,

de

los

cobardes

y

de los

mazorqueros

la ciudad

de

Buenos

Aires,

es

decir,

se?ores,

el

punto

c?ntrico de

donde

parten

los

rayos

del

poder

de

Rosas.

[...]" (M?rmol

108,

emphasis

added).

Here

we see

that

Daniel does

not

consider

escape

into

exile

a

valid

option,

because it leaves

behind

only

the

weak

(women

and

cowards)

and Rosas'

strongmen,

los

mazorqueros.

The

inclusion

of

women

in

this

disparaged

category

does

not

ring

true

in the



18/25

Woman,

Nation,

and

Exile

in

Jos?

M?rmol's Amalia

71

context

of the

novel

as a

whole and thus

Daniel's

argument against

exile is

undermined.

The novel is

populated

by

various female

characters?Marcelina,

Madame

Dupasquier,

and foremost

among

them Amalia

(not

to

mention

Rosas'

own

daughter,

Manuelita)?who,

relative

to

the standards of the

time,

are

quite strong-willed

and

courageous.

All of these women?with the

exception

of do?a Marcelina

(the

madame of

a

house of

prostitution,

who is

not

afraid

to

let Daniel

hold his

political

meetings

at

her

establishment)?

serve

to

illustrate the model of theMother of the

Republic6

which

prevailed

at

that time. While these

women

actively

oppose

the

Rosas

regime,

ulti

mately,

the

courage

of the educated women in Amalia

mainly

serves to

uphold

their

very

specific

and limited role: that of

maintaining

cultural

values.

One such

figure

is

Se?ora

Dupasquier,

the mother of

Florencia,

Daniel'

s

fianc?e. The

narrator

describes her

as

she is

recovering

from

a

faint

brought

on

by

talk

of

going

into

exile,

after

resisting

a

search

by

one

of

Rosas' henchmen. Daniel arrives

at

the

Dupasquier

home and finds Se?ora

Dupasquier

passed

out

in the

arms

of her

daughter,

who

explains

to

Daniel

that Rosas' reviled henchman

Victorica,

accompanied by

a

commissary

and

two soldiers, had just paid them a visit. He had searched the house and

questioned

Se?ora

Dupasquier

about the whereabouts of

Eduardo?but she

had refused

to

answer

him,

or

to

cooperate

with the search of

her home:

?Mam?

se

neg?

a

responderle

[....]

Se

neg?

tambi?n

a

abrir la

puerta

de

un

cuarto

interior

que

casualmente

se

hallaba

cerrada,

y

Victorica la hizo hechar

abajo.

[No

se

abri? la

puerta] Porque

mam?

dijo

desde

el

principio

a

Victorica

que

no se

quer?a

prestar

a

conducirlo

al interior de

su

casa; que

?l obrase

como

quisiese, pues que

ten?a la

fuerza

para

hacerlo. Mam?

se

ha

sostenido

con un

valor

y

una

dignidad

propios

de ella.

(M?rmol

180,

emphasis

added)

After all of this

dignified

and

unflinching

heroism,

it

is

the

thought

of

exile

which

causes

her

to

faint: "Pero

luego

que

ha

quedado

sola,

me

ha

hablado

de

nuestro

casamiento,

me

ha dicho

que

es

necesario salir del

pa?s

y para

siempre.

En mis

brazos la he sentido

sufrir,

y

la he sentido

desmayarse."

(M?rmol

180)

The

narrator

goes

on

to

describe

Se?ora

Dupasquier

in

glowing

terms

as

the cr?me de la

cr?me of

Buenos

Aires

and

[...]

de

esas

mujeres

que

sufr?an m?s

que

los hombres

por

la

humillaci?n

que

la dictadura

hac?a sufrir al

pa?s;

y

que

m?s

que

los

hombres,

ten?a valor

para

afrontar

los

enojos



19/25

72

Latin

American

Literary

Review

del tirano

y

de la

plebe

armada

e

insolentada

por

?l.

[...]

?S?lo

Dios,

s? sabe cu?ntas nobles

mujeres

argentinas

han

bajado

al

sepulcro

paso

a

paso,

llevadas

por

la

mano

de

esa

?poca

de

sangre, y

de

impresiones

rudas sobre

su

coraz?n

sensible

(M?rmol 181)

Upon

regaining

consciousness,

the first

words uttered

by

this

aristocratic

lady

who

isoffendedby

the mob

rule associated with Rosas'

regime,are:

"?

Daniel,

[...]

es

preciso

salir del

pa?s;

usted

y

Eduardo ma?ana

si

es

posible.

Amalia,

yo

y

mi

hija

los

seguiremos pronto."

(M?rmol

181)

After

standing

up

to

Victorica,

and

standing

firm

as

he knocked down

a

door in

her

house,

it is the

thought

of

exile,

of

permanent

separation

from the

patria,

which is

too

much for this Unitarian

woman.

More

importantly,

her main

qualities,

and contributions

to

the anti-Rosas

struggle,

are a

strong

sense

of

dignity

and

a

sensitivity

to

humiliation.

As

seen

earlier,

Amalia falters

at

the mention of

exile,

but

in

a

similar

fashion

to

Se?ora

Dupasquier,

she

is

a

strong,

dignified

woman

who stands

up

to

the Federalists. When the

Federalistas have

begun

to

suspect

that

Eduardo

is

hiding

in

Amalia's

house,

Victorica

comes

to

carry

out

a

search

of her house. Amalia, frightened but trying to compose herself, refuses to

directly

answer

Victorica's

questions:

"No

lo

s?,

se?or;

pero

si lo

supiera

no

lo

dir?a."

(M?rmol 178)

And

when Amalia

responds

to

Victorica's

com

plaints

about

Unitarians,

by wishing

for

more

Unitarians,

Victorica

accuses

her of

abusing

of her

position

as

a woman:

?Que

usted abusa de

su sexo.

?Como

usted de

su

posici?n.

??No

teme

usted de

sus

palabras,

se?ora?

?No,

se?or.

En

Buenos

Aires s?lo los hombres

temen;

pero

las

se?oras

sabemos defender

una

dignidad

que

ellos

han olvidado.

(M?rmol

179)

In

this

passage

Amalia

clearly

uses

her

gender?and

the

respect

with which

even a

Federalist is

supposed

to

treat

it

according

to

the social codes of her

time?in order

to

express

her

opinions.

This includes

elevating

women

as

the

only gender

which

has

not

lost its

dignity

through

this

political

conflict.

Amalia makes

a

similar

statement

about

women

when

speaking

with

Eduardo:

"??Cree

usted,

Eduardo,

que

bajo

el cielo

que

nos

cubre,

no

hay

tambi?n

mujeres

que

identifiquen

su

vida

y

su

destino

con

la vida

y

el destino

de los hombres?

?Oh

Cuando

todos los hombres han olvidado

que

lo

son en

la

patria

de los

argentinos, deje

usted

a

lo

menos

que

las

mujeres

conservemos

la

generosidad

de

nuestra

alma

y

la

nobleza

de

nuestro

car?cter."

(M?rmol

93,

emphasis

added)

This

passage,

for all its

forcefulness,

is

ultimately

a



20/25


21/25

74 Latin American

Literary

Review

tine values. Here

we

find

a

reformulation of Doris Sommer's

interpretation

of the

romance

between

Eduardo and Amalia

as

the seductive

power

of the

"loving

capital

over

its

ministering

province"

(Sommer 100),

and

a

liter

ary?and

exilic?expression

of

what Chiaramonte

calls the

"relaci?n

de

posesi?n"

on

the

part

of

Buenos

Aires

in

regards

to

the

other

provinces.

In

Amalia the

civilized of the

periphery

take

refuge

in

the

periphery

of

the

center

(the

outskirts of

Buenos

Aires),

but

they

also

give refuge

to

the

civilized

of the

center.

As

a

depositary

of

the

national

legacy,

and

the

only

clear survivor of

the

three main

protagonists

(Eduardo

dies and it

is

suggested

that Daniel

does

as

well)

Amalia

will then have a role in the

(re)constitution

of

Argentina?the

same

role

to

which

returning

exiles

aspired.

While Daniel

could

have served

as a

model

for

a

third, non-exile,

option?his

fate

at

the

end of the novel is

unclear,

and

certainly

insecure

as

the last

we are

told

of

him

is

that

he

has

sustained

a

deep

head

wound.

Through

the

figure

of

Amalia,

the

only

surviving protagonist

and the

one

exile

portrayed

in

the

novel,

M?rmol in the end defends

his

own

position

as

that

of

someone

who

against

his volition

was

shut

out

of

Argentine

politics

and

within

that

did

what

he

could:

secluded

himself in exile

in

Uruguay

and

Brazil

and

wrote.

He uses the internally exiled woman to defend the externally exiled

intellectual?the masculinized

woman

to

defend

the

feminized

(Romantic,

Unitarian,

intellectual)

man.

Amalia

is

a

figure

for the

nation,

and,

at

one

and

the

same

time,

a

figure

for the

exile;

she is the nation

in

(internal)

exile.

As Masiello

points

out,

"[...]

Amalia

is

more

than

an

unambiguous

defense of

the valor of

Unitarian

women;

it also

uses

the

gender

system

in

flux

as

a

metaphor

for

dissent

in the

nation.

M?rmol

manipulates

an

unstable

gender

situation,

as

perceived

within the

Unitarian

camp,

to

dramatize

the

conflicts

between

federalists

and

Unitarians and also

as

a

tool for

understand

ing

the

debates

among

Unitarians

themselves."

(Masiello 30)

I

propose, then,

that the

main debate

among

Unitarians

to

which Amalia

responds,

is that

surrounding

the

exile

and

his/her

once

and future role

in the

shaping

of

the

nation.

In

closing,

I

would

like

to

refer

to

the

reception

and

deployment

of the

novel?another

level

on

which

exile

comes

into

play.

If

exile

is

defined

as

"not

being

able

to

go

back"?what

happens

when it becomes

possible

to

return?

Amalia

was

first serialized

in

Montevideo's

La

Semana,

but before the

novel-by-installments

was

complete,

Rosas

was

defeated and

M?rmol

immediately

stopped

writing

and

publishing

the novel.

A

second

printing

of the

novel,

such

as

it

stood,

that

was

to

appear

in the

columns

of M?rmol'

s

own

El

Paran?,

was

suspended

in

1852

out

of fear of

disturbing

the

post

Rosas reconciliation.

It

was

only

in

1855

thatM?rmol

completed

Amalia and

published

it

as a

book.

But

the

process

of

producing

this

definitive

text



22/25

Woman,

Nation,

and

Exile

in

Jos?

M?rmol'

s

Amalia 75

included not only adding the last 8 chapters, but also cutting certain passages

which

M?rmol believed

might

be

too

bitter

for the

new

period

of

national

reconciliation.7

Thus

the novel has

a

troubled

relationship

to

nationality,

on

the

level of its

ambiguous

images

of

the

nation,

as

well

as

on

the

level of

its initial

reception

and

potential

political impact.

In

spite

of the

first of

these,

as soon

as

the

second?the

political

situation?had been stabilized

to

the Unitarians'

favor,

Amalia

was

strongly

promoted.

As

Doris

Sommer

indicates,

it

was

embraced

and

championed by returning

exiles

as a

national

novel;

it became

a

"foundational"

novel,

because these exiles

were

part

of

the liberal elite

that

was

returning

to

take

control of national

affairs.8

M?rmol had

an

active role in

the

national

stabilization

under Buenos

Aires'

dominance

and

in

subsequent

national institutions.

On

September

11,

1852,

he

was

part

of the armed

uprising

by

which

Buenos Aires

broke

away

from the

Confederation.

Eventually,

in

1862,

this

led

to

the

establishment

of

a

politically

unified

Argentina

under

the

presidency

of

Bartolom?

Mitre,

former

governor

of

Buenos Aires.

Sommer

notes

that

"The

new

government

established

in

Buenos

Aires after Mitre's

victory

appointed

M?rmol

to

the

Senate

[...],

while it

promoted

Amalia'

s

celebrity

as

the foremost novel."

(Sommer,

110)

M?rmol

later

became director of the

National

Library

and

his

novel became

required

reading

in the

nationalist education curriculum.

Thus,

Amalia became

part

of the

pedagogy

of

being

Argentine.

M?rmol'

s

novel,

then,

can

be

seen

as

a

confluence of

gendered images,

political

agenda,

and exile. On

one

hand,

it is

an

example

of how

an

exiled

intellectual tries

to

figure

out

the role of the

?migr?, grapples

with

his

position

vis-?-vis

Argentina,

and

defends it

through

a

character

who

is

at

once

linked

to

love of

country,

the

experience

of

exile,

and

the maintenance

of

Argentine

values.

On the

other

hand,

it

is

an

example

of

how

exile and the

exiled intellectual

play

a

central role

in

the formation of

nationalism and its

subjects. In short, exile is at the heart of the nation, for exile is the stuff of

which nationalist sentiment

is

made.

UNIVERSITY

OF MIAMI



23/25

76

Latin

American

Literary

Review

NOTES

1

These discursive

categories,

which

came

into

frequent

use

during

the

European Enlightenment, were first employed in theProvinces of the R?o de la Plata

at

the

beginning

of the

19th

century.

They

were

then

civantos_amalia inside outside.pdf

Documents