BA (Hons) in European Studies

Who is guilty of a crime?

Module: Literature

Lecturer: Marcela Nievas

Student Name: Sabina Wojtowicz X00062751

Year: 2

Semester: IV

Date of submission: 15/05/2009

Declaration of Ownership

This assignment is submitted to ITT Dublin, in partial fulfilment of the requirements leading to

the award of Bachelor of Arts (Hons). I declare that the work contained is entirely my own and

that sources have been acknowledged and references as required by the Institute.

Signed……………………………………… Date………….....................

1

Gabriel García Márquez is considered one of the most significant authors of the 20th

century. Year before he was awarded a Nobel Price for Literature (1982) he published

Chronicle of a Death Foretold. The novel gives exceptional insight into the circumstances of

‘honour killing’. The author depicted the murder of twenty-one-year-old Santiago Nasar,

which took place 27 years earlier in small, unnamed Latin American town. The narrator, a

journalist and a former friend of the victim, is examining the incident and presents the reader

with the detailed history of the events leading to the brutal murder. He reveals the complicity

of this crime as the more is discovered, the less is understood. Santiago Nasar was murdered

by the two Vicario brothers, because he allegedly disgraced their family name. Their sister

Angela Vicario was returned by her husband Bayardo San Roman to her parents on their

wedding night when he discovered that she was not a virgin. She named her perpetrator as

Santiago Nasar. In order to restore family’s honour Vicario brothers, Pedro and Pablo,

announce that they are going to kill young Nasar. However, the novel is not a tale about

Santiago Nasar, or Angela Vicario but it is the story of the small Columbian town and its

people. The author portrays the society of rigid hierarchies and strict codes of behaviour.

Although, the narrator makes it clear that the whole town knew that the perpetrator was to be

murdered, as well as the motive and the place of the crime, no one was able to or willing to

stop the murder from happening. This essay will examine the question who is guilty of the

murder. Is it Santiago Nasar himself who’s unacceptable conduct led to his death or Angela

Vicario who pointed him as the perpetrator? In addition this essay will focus on guilt of the

Vicario’s brother as well as will try to answer the question if the responsibility for the crime

lies on the shoulders on every individual that did not take any action to prevent it.

2

Santiago Nasar remains a mystery throughout much of the novel, yet at this same time

he is one of the most displayed characters. He was twenty-one-year-old at the time of a

killing. Born as the only child to the wealthy family, he lived in one the best houses in town

and already at his young age owned a farm: ‘Handsome, a man of his word, and with a

fortune of his own at the age of twenty-one.’1 He is not only portrayed as rich, but also under

protection. He was privileged and untouched as his gun ‘(...) could cut a horse in two

through the middle. The reader is also told that he was a good person: ’Santiago Nasar was

merry and peaceful, and openhearted.2’ His appreciation of firearms, ‘his love for horses,

and the mastery of high-flying birds of prey, (...) the good arts of valor and prudence’3 came

from his father, who was no longer alive. On one hand we learn that he lost his virginity in a

local brothel and if he had lived longer, probably would have seduced Divina Flor, the

daughter of Victoria Guzman. Therefore, the question is could he possibly be the one who

seduced Angela Vicario? In my opinion he could not. First of all, the town people agreed

that he didn’t show any interest in Angela and they were never seen together. Another very

strong argument is his behaviour during the morning he was to be murdered, which clearly

indicates that he was innocent. In the annotations of the judge to note ‘the victim’s very

behaviour during his last hours was overwhelming proof of his innocence’4 was to be found.

Although the whole town knew what is going to happen, Santiago Nasar was not aware of it.

Not only because he was not informed, but also because he did not do what he was blamed

for. When he was told that he is the target of Vicario brothers, his reaction reflected ‘not so

much fear as confusion’5 and ‘was not one of panic, as has so often been said, but was rather

1 Marquez G. G., Chronicle of a Death Foretold, translated by Gregory Rabassa, Penguin Books, London 1982 p. 172 Marquez G. G., Chronicle of a Death Foretold, translated by Gregory Rabassa, Penguin Books, London 1982 p.63 Marquez G. G., Chronicle of a Death Foretold, translated by Gregory Rabassa, Penguin Books, London 1982 p.64 Marquez G. G., Chronicle of a Death Foretold, translated by Gregory Rabassa, Penguin Books, London 1982 p.1015 Marquez G. G., Chronicle of a Death Foretold, translated by Gregory Rabassa, Penguin Books, London 1982 p.116

3

the bewilderment of innocence.’6 He said: ‘I don’t understand a Goddamned thing.’7 He also

showed sincere intention to marry his fiancé as he calculated the wedding costs. In addition,

the fact that he lost his virginity at young age in brother was another proof that he had no

interest in seducing Angela Vicario. However, she stated otherwise. When she was asked by

her brother who was the perpetrator, ‘she only took the time necessary to say the name.’8 She

repeated the same name to the judge without hesitation. Even many years after the crime,

asked about it she said: ‘He was the one.’9 The most probable course of events is that she was

protecting someone who she really loved and decided to choose Santiago Nasar as her victim,

because she might thought that her brothers ‘would not dare to go up against him.’10 In my

view she was guilty of a murder the most. Angela Vicario took deliberate decision to blame

Santiago Nasar, therefore she murdered him with premeditation as there was no evidence to

support’s her accusation. However, her word was respected. No-one even asked Nasar if

those accusations were true. Nasar’s behaviour towards his young servant girl was

unacceptable and no wonders that his conduct provoked hatred among some people especially

Victoria Guzman, who said: ‘He was just like his father. A shit.’11 However, his deeds do not

justify Angela Vicario’s accusation.

The motive of Vicario brother was simple – they were defending the honour of not

only their sister, but also of the whole family. They did not make decision, it was put upon

them as it was a wide known custom. It also cannot be said that their intentions were

6 Marquez G. G., Chronicle of a Death Foretold, translated by Gregory Rabassa, Penguin Books, London 1982 p.1027 Marquez G. G., Chronicle of a Death Foretold, translated by Gregory Rabassa, Penguin Books, London 1982 p.1168 Marquez G. G., Chronicle of a Death Foretold, translated by Gregory Rabassa, Penguin Books, London 1982 p.479 Marquez G. G., Chronicle of a Death Foretold, translated by Gregory Rabassa, Penguin Books, London 1982 p.9110 Marquez G. G., Chronicle of a Death Foretold, translated by Gregory Rabassa, Penguin Books, London 1982 p.9111 Marquez G. G., Chronicle of a Death Foretold, translated by Gregory Rabassa, Penguin Books, London 1982 p.8

4

determined. The brothers were honourable man and therefore oblige to commit the crime.

Furthermore, the facts suggest that they longed for being stopped. They did not conceal their

intentions nor did they behave dishonestly. They were frank and perceived the homicide as

legitimate defence of honour. After the murder they went to Father Amador’s house and

surrender, which is a proof oh theirs great dignity: ‘”We killed him openly,” Pedro Vicario

said, “but we are innocent.” “Perhaps before God,” said Father Amador. “Before God and

before man,” Pablo Vicario said. “It was a matter of honor.”’12 The Vicario brother told

their plans to many people and the news had spread all over the town; however the fact that

no-one warned Santiago Nasar is stunning. ‘(...), the reality seemed to be that the Vicario

brothers had done nothing right in line with killing Santiago Nasar right off and without any

public spectacle, but had done much more than could be imagined for someone to stop them

from killing him, and they failed.’13 They murder him because that was their duty and they

did not have any other alternatives to choose from. Although they performed the act of

killing, in my opinion they were not guilty of the murder as they were only cogs in the wheel.

In ‘Chronicle of a Death Foretold’ the society plays a significant role. The cultural

setting is significant as it is based on the ideas of religion, morals, wealth and power. It has to

be mentioned that not only Vicaro’s brother were put on the trial, but all the towns people,

who know about the murder, but most of them did noting to stop it. In my view, the fault and

the responsibility of Nasar’s killing lie on the shoulders on every individual that did not take

any action to prevent it as ‘there had never been a death more foretold.’14 Their reasons and

motivation were different. The author also describes the hypocrisy of the society as it is

unacceptable to sleep with unmarried woman but yet it is tolerable to have brothels in the city. 12 Marquez G. G., Chronicle of a Death Foretold, translated by Gregory Rabassa, Penguin Books, London 1982 p.4913 Marquez G. G., Chronicle of a Death Foretold, translated by Gregory Rabassa, Penguin Books, London 1982 p.4914 Marquez G. G., Chronicle of a Death Foretold, translated by Gregory Rabassa, Penguin Books, London 1982 p.50

5

The stunning fact is also that the clergy and the mayor, the men who should have take an

action, decide to ignore it. It cannot be said that no one was willing, or desired to stop this

murder as a few people in the community, like Clothilde Armenta and Yamil Shaium, tried to

prevent the death from occurring however they failed as sometimes ‘fatality makes us

invisible.’15 The cultural ethics are very important as most of the town people silently

accepted the killing in accordance with their values. It has to be noted that in this strong

moral value system the honour played a principal role. However in my opinion, the moral

responsibility of people as citizens, and as Christians should have prevailed. However they

assumed the passive role and acted as mere observes of the spectacle. Therefore, they share

the blame for the crime.

This book leaves many questions unanswered therefore is open to many

interpretations. The narrator gives us random and fragmentary information with which the

reader has to piece the crime together. As I mentioned before the novel is not a tale about

Santiago Nasar, or Angela Vicario but it is the story of the small Columbian town and its

people. The author portrays the society of rigid hierarchies and strict codes of behaviour.

Although, the narrator makes it clear that the whole town knew that the perpetrator was to be

murdered, as well as the motive and the place of the crime, no one was able to or willing to

stop the murder from happening. Therefore, in my opinion, it is clear that they are guilty of

murder, maybe not before the judicial system, but before their consciousness and before God

that they believe in. The author also implies that Santiago Nasar was probably innocent,

which makes this crime especially cruel and savage. I also feel no pity for Angela Vicario as

15 Marquez G. G., Chronicle of a Death Foretold, translated by Gregory Rabassa, Penguin Books, London 1982 p.114

6

in my view she guilty of committing cold-blooded murder and putting her brother on a duty to

carry out the killing, yet the complicity of this crime found no-one guilty.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Marquez G. G., Chronicle of a Death Foretold, translated by Gregory Rabassa, Penguin Books, London 1982

7