Sor Juana Inés
de la Cruz, “Respuesta a Sor Filotea”-1691
General context:
As many of you may already know, the “Reply to Sor Filotea” was written
on March 1691 as a response to a critique of the Bishop of Puebla included
along with the publication of Sor Juana’s “Carta Atenagórica” (or “Letter Worthy of Athena”) (1690). In the “Respuesta” Sor Juana defends her
right to devote to secular and artistic endeavors, such as the production of
love poems and dramatic pieces, as well as her right to study and develop
intellectual pursuits as a woman in New Spain during the second half of the
seventeenth century. This author is one
of the colonial figures most widely studied, so I would like to mention some of
the critical works that were crucial in my understanding of Sor Juana Inés de
la Cruz as an intellectual and as an artist.
The work done by Dorothy Schons is still crucial to understand the life
and works of Sor Juana. Her article
“The First Feminist in the New World” published in 1925 remains a very engaging
piece, informing the work of scholars such as Stephanie Merrim, Electa Arenal,
Stacey Schlau, Amanda Powell, Margo Glantz, Raquel Chang-Rodríguez, Asunción
Lavrín, Mabel Moraña, Nina Scott, and Georgina Sabat Rivers, among many others. Octavio Paz’s book, Las trampas de la fe,
is still a key reference for Sor Juana specialists, not only for all the
crucial information it provides about the colonial condition in México, but
also for the important omissions of his work, such as the consideration of
gender in the colonial context, as Electa Arenal has already pointed out. Asunción Lavrín, Stacey Schlau and Electa
Arenal have done significant work to provide a broader context to Sor Juana’s
writings, by identifying other women and nuns who were also writers during the
colonial period, and by reconstructing the social context in which these women
developed their artistic and epistemological interests. Stephanie Merrim not only edited one of the
most widely known collections of feminist studies on Sor Juana, but her latest
book Early Modern Women’s Writing and Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz proposes
a comparative approach that links the works of Sor Juana with María de Zayas,
Anne Bradstreet and Catalina de Erauso, among others. One interesting example is her proposal to “re-place the
‘Respuesta’ in the early modern feminist debates known as querelle des
femmes” which “constituted a pan-Western “language” —an ideological and
discursive repertoire— for early modern debates of gender difference.” Merrim establishes a dialogue between Europe
and the Americas that is crucial for the study of Colonial Latin American
cultures, because early Ibero-Americans did not conceive of themselves as a
separate entity from the metropolitan centers of power. Finally, Electa Arenal’s and Amanda Powell’s
bilingual edition of the “Respuesta” is a crucial to make possible the kind of
project proposed by the organizers of this Summit because it provides us with a
thought-provoking “Introduction” and a very careful translation of the text
that could be used in courses of Hispanic Literature in Translation or Colonial
Literature in the Americas.
Today I would
like to suggest three possible areas that could foster comparative studies on
Writing Lives in the Early Americas.
I. Subalternities
and writing —One of the ways to approach this text as part of an
autobiographic genre is to identify the conditions of subalternity that some of
these texts share. In most cases
gender, race, ethnic identity and social class are important considerations to
contextualize the narration of a life.
On the other hand, and given that writing was not necessarily a massive
or democratic mode of representation or of cultural expression, many of these
subjects had some form of privilege that allowed them to have access to this
limited form of representation.
However, in Sor Juana’s case, we see how her gender and her condition as
a nun were crucial elements for her problematic inclusion in certain modes of
written expression. Her use of the
“letter” is also meaningful, as she chose a form of written expression that
could have a very limited circulation, or could even be considered an intimate
or private form of communication, to inscribe herself within a feminine
intellectual tradition and to defend her right to study privately and to
produce literary writings that had a broader audience among the powerful elite
of the society of her time. Here we also should take into consideration that
letters were —along with official reports to the King— an important genre in
the Colonial period. Thus, the “letter”
sometimes was an intimate and other times an extremely official form of
communication. As a result, Sor Juana portrays in her “Respuesta...” a
subjectivity that is simultaneously a subaltern and in some cases a privileged
voice due to her condition as a nun who was openly protected by two viceroys
and their wives and probably by the Bishop of Puebla. This ambiguous position vis à vis the centers of power
brings me to the last point of interest in Sor Juana’s case that could also be
addressed from a comparative point of view: her colonial condition. Sor Juana includes in her works some
consideration of the fact that she was born in the New Spain, and she seems to
be aware of how her condition as a “cultural mestiza” and as a Creole woman
made her a marginal subjectivity within the hegemonic sectors of her time. However, in the “Respuesta” Sor Juana refers
to her colonial condition in a narration of her “inclination” to letters and
other intellectual pursuits. I would like to discuss this aspect as the second
topic that could be of interest for us today.
II. Epistemology
and constitution of situated or alternative knowledges— Autobiographies and
life stories could be read as a representation of a subject’s knowledge as a
result of her/his experiences. In many
cases an autobiography is a text in which an individual legitimates and
authorizes her experiences as representative of a particular and important form
of knowledge. In the case of Sor Juana,
nonetheless, her concern with knowledge is more than literal. In her “Respuesta” Sor Juana deflects the
attention from the original critique to her secular writings, and transforms
her life story into a narration of her “inclination to letters” (47), and in
some cases she even ventures into a critique of the epistemological paradigms
of her time. In her narration Sor Juana
refers to her exclusion from the university, she describes the informal and
difficult setting of her solitary education, and she even creates an artistic
and intellectual tradition that validates her desire to study both in a secular
and religious context. Thus, I would
like to propose this kind of reading as another area in which a comparative
approach could be fruitful. For
example, in what way can some of these narrations be seen as a critique of a
single cognitive subjectivity to favor what Donna Haraway defines as “situated
knowledges” or what Foucault classifies as “subjugated knowledges”? How does the intersection with colonialism
complicate even more this constitution of a knowing subjectivity that is trying
to define a voice and a space vis à vis the unequal relations of power
defining the early Ibero/American period?
III. Colonial
Rhetoric—In his book entitled Rhetoric in the New World, Abbott
presents a set of questions that are also enlightening when reading the
“Respuesta”: “Critical questions, then, confronted rhetoricians as a result of
the encounter: Could Europeans adapt their ancient art to the exigencies of a
New World? Or would they ignore the
customs and mores of the inhabitants of the Americas and perpetuate the
centuries-old patterns of European thought?
Or would these theorists find a “middle way” cognizant of both the
classical heritage and the indigenous experience?” (9). Rosa Perelmuter has carefully studied the
rhetorical structure of the “Reply to Sor Filotea” to point out the different
strategies used by Sor Juana to create an intellectual persona in her
writings. However, I would like to
posit additional questions that will combine both Abbott’s and Perelmuter’s
readings. Can we read “La Respuesta” as
one possible example of a Colonial discourse in the Americas? Can we describe and redefine some of the
rhetorical strategies used by Sor Juana and other writers in the Americas to
analyze the internal structure of a colonial discourse? This kind of reading will allow to explore
the intersection of rhetoric and colonialism to propose some of these writings
as another form of minority discourse.
Once a colonial subjectivity has been defined (and here I am referring
to the work done by Memmi, Fanon, Césaire, Bhabha, etc.), we could trace the
textual marks that this colonial subjectivity leaves in the written productions
of this period. Autobiographies and
life narratives are an excellent point of departure to study the internal
structure of Early Ibero/American writings as a form of minority and colonial
discourse. Perhaps these questions will
reconnect us back with the transatlantic setting in which these narratives where
produced, but they also allow us to think about the internal connections that
could be established between the writers that we are discussing today in this
panel.
IV. Useful bibliography:
Abbot, Don
Paul. Rhetoric in the New World:
Rhetorical Theory in Colonial Spanish America. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1996.
Arenal, Electa
and Stacey Schlau. Untold
Sisters. Hispanic Nuns in Their Own
Works. Albuquerque: University of
New México Press, 1989.
Arenal, Electa
and Amanda Powell. Sor Juana Inés de
la Cruz. The Answer/La Respuesta. Including a Selection of Poems. New York: The Feminist Press at the City
University of New York, 1994.
Bénassy-Berling,
Marie Cécile. Humanisme et Religion chez Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. La femme et la culture au XVII Siècle. Paris: Editions Hispaniques, 1982.
Bhabha,
Homi. “Difference, Discrimination, and
the Discourse of Colonialism.” The
Politics of Theory. Eds. Francis
Barker et al. Colchester:
University of Essex, 1983. 194-211.
---. “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of
Colonial Discourse.” October 28
(Spring 1984): 125-133.
Césaire,
Aimé. Discourse on Colonialism. New York and London: Monthly Review Press,
1972.
Chang-Rodríguez,
Raquel. “Mayorías y minorías en la
formación de la cultura virreinal.” University
of Dayton Review. 16.2 (Spring
1983): 23-34.
---. “Relectura de Los empeños de una casa.” Revista Iberoamericana 104-105 (1978): 409-419.
de Certeau,
Michel. "Montaigne's 'Of
Cannibals': The Savage 'I'." Heterologies. Discourse on the Other.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 19. 67-79.
---. The
Practice of Everyday Life.
California: University of California Press, 1988.
Fanon,
Frantz. Black Skin, White Masks. Londres: Paladin, 1970.
---. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Weindelfeld, 1991.
Flynn, Gerard
Cox. Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. Nueva York: Twayne, 1971.
---. “A
Revision of the Philosophy of Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz.” Hispania
43.4 (Diciembre 1960): 515-520.
Franco, Jean. “Introduction.” “Sor Juana Explores Space.”
Plotting Women. Gender and
Representation in Mexico. New York:
Columbia Press, 1989. xi-xxiv;
23-54.
---. “Las finezas de Sor Juana.” “Y diversa de
mí misma entre vuestras plumas ando”: Homenaje Internacional a Sor Juana Inés
de la Cruz. Ed. Sara
Poot-Herrera. México: El Colegio de
México, 1994. 247-256.
Glantz, Margo. Borrones y borradores: reflexiones sobre el
ejercicio de la escritura México: UNAM, 1992.
---. Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz: ¿hagiografía o
autobiografía? México: Grijalbo y
UNAM, 1995.
JanMohamed,
Abdul R. and David Lloyd, eds. The
Nature and Context of Minority Discourse.
New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Lavrin,
Asunción, ed. Sexuality and Marriage
in Colonial Latin America. Lincoln
and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1992.
López Cámara,
Francisco. “El cartesianismo en Sor
Juana y Sigüenza y Góngora.” Filosofía
y letras 19-20.39 (Julio-
Septiembre 1950): 107-131.
Ludmer,
Josefina. “Tretas del débil.” La sartén por el mango: Encuentro de
escritoras latinoamericanas. Ed.
Patricia Elena González. Puerto Rico:
Huracán, 1985. 47-54.
Martínez-San
Miguel, Yolanda. Saberes americanos: subalternidad y epistemología en los
escritos de Sor Juana. Pittsburgh:
Instituto Internacional de Literatura Iberoamericana—Serie Nuevo Siglo, 1999.
Memmi,
Albert. The Colonizer and the
Colonized. Boston: Beacon Press,
1990.
Merrim,
Stephanie. Early Modern Women’s
Writing and Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz.
Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1999.
Merrim,
Stephanie, ed. Feminist Perspectives
on Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz.
Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1991.
Moraña,
Mabel. Viaje al silencio. Exploraciones del discurso barroco. México: UNAM, 1998.
Moraña, Mabel,
ed. Mujer y cultura en la colonia
hispanoamericana. Pittsburgh:
Biblioteca de América, 1996.
Paz,
Octavio. Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz o
las trampas de la fe. México: Fondo
de Cultura Económica, 1990.
---. “Homenaje
a Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz en su tercer centenario (1651-1695)” Sur. 206 (diciembre 1951):
29-40.
Perelmuter
Pérez, Rosa. “La estructura retórica de
la Respuesta a sor Filotea.” Hispanic
Review. 51.2 (Spring 1983):
147-158.
Poot-Herrera,
Sara, ed. Sor Juana y su mundo. México: Universidad del Claustro de Sor
Juana, 1995.
---., ed. “Y diversa de mí misma entre vuestras
plumas ando”: Homenaje internacional a Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. México: El Colegio de México, 1993.
Sabat-Rivers,
Georgina. En busca de Sor Juana.
México: UNAM, 1998.
Schons,
Dorothy. “The First Feminist in the New
World.” Equal Rights. October 31, 1925, pp. 11-12.
Young,
Robert. Colonial Desire. Hybridity, Theory, Culture and Race. Londres: Routledge, 1995.